There are five pillars of the Trump strategic worldview, as revealed by his statements and actions.
Separated from his unconventional style, they sound like ideas that Lincoln would have had little trouble endorsing.
Every country is out for itself. President Trump is a realist, not an idealist. Half a century in the New York real-estate market has convinced him humans are motivated mainly by self-interest, and he presumes the same is true of nation-states. Power alignments may change, but the struggle for dominance is ceaseless. Countries that are our friends today may be our enemies tomorrow, and vice-versa. Trump believes his most important role as president is to keep America on top—even if that means dealing ruthlessly with friends who have become a burden.
Peace is sustained by strength. “Peace through strength” wasn’t just a favorite phrase of Ronald Reagan, it was a sentiment expressed by the Roman emperor Hadrian, and later embraced by George Washington in his first state-of-the-union address. Trump began his presidential campaign calling for a buildup in U.S. nuclear forces, and then as chief executive raised defense spending by an amount greater than the entire military budget of Germany. The president believes that the most reliable way to prevent wars is by making them too horrible for enemies to contemplate. Or as Teddy Roosevelt might have put it, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Strength arises first and foremost from a robust economy. Trump’s security views are inseparable from his economic views, and he sees U.S. industry in the same light that FDR did – as an “arsenal of democracy.” Allowing that arsenal to decay through globalization or unfair trade treaties endangers both peace and prosperity. Trump shares a view widespread in the intelligence community that the decline of America’s share of global GDP from 31% in 2000 to 23% in 2008 was an ominous trend that needed to be reversed. He blames China’s mercantilist trade policies for much of the erosion, and he therefore has little compunction about responding in kind.
Every overseas commitment is an investment. Given that the U.S. is pursuing its self-interest in global affairs, Trump believes foreign interventions should be weighed in terms of their likely returns. The commitment of nearly a billion dollars per week to nation-building in Afghanistan is clearly an underperforming commitment. Syria looks to be a nearly worthless piece of real estate. And few recent moves by Washington bother Trump more than the misguided decision to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and ultimately cost the U.S. trillions of dollars. Trump will intervene where there are obvious benefits for America, but his inclination is to spend taxpayer funds over here rather than “over there.”
Allies aren’t worth having if they’re a burden. When Al-Qaeda carried out the 9-11 attacks, its main complaint was that U.S. forces were in the Islamic holy land. When North Korea threatened the U.S. with missile attack, its main complaint was that U.S. troops were in South Korea. Trump looks at the potential fallout from such commitments and questions whether they serve national interests. That is why during the campaign he suggested that maybe Japan and South Korea needed their own nuclear deterrents. His comments on that front were viewed by many pundits as dangerously naïve, but if North Korea ever launches a nuclear missile against America, public opinion on the subject could shift fast.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/01/22/trumps-strategic-vision-is-more-coherent-than-his-critics-imagine/#34d642ca4934
Bookmarks