foreign policy
Has Trump’s Foreign Policy Been Successful?
Political Science, Ohio State
Harvard University
0
0
Genesis
Response
Penultimate
Finale
October 7th, 2020
President Trump is a nationalist, whose views on immigration, trade, and international organizations follow a Republican tradition that dates to Henry Cabot Lodge, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Robert Taft. Prior to the Second World War, American exceptionalism meant shielding the American experiment from foreign threats, steering clear of permanent alliances, spreading democracy through example rather than military force, embracing protectionism and fair (not free) trade, and preferring independent to multilateral action. Simply put, it was about America first.
To appreciate the success of Trump’s foreign policies, consider the alternative. For Democrats and “never Trump” Republicans, a Joe Biden victory promises a “Glorious Restoration” of the liberal international order and the strategic progress made during the post-Cold War decades—a return to the pre-Trump foreign policies for which they were responsible. And what a record it was: the ascent of al Qaeda and 9/11; the disastrous Iraq war; the quagmire in Afghanistan; the rise of Iran to near-hegemony in the region; civil wars in Syria and Libya; the territorial expansion of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS); a resurgent Russia gobbling up territory in Ukraine, aligning with Beijing, and expanding its influence in the Middle East and Africa; and the unchallenged rise of a revisionist China to “peer competitor” status with the United States.
These same establishment elites loudly condemned Trump’s rejection of the Iranian nuclear deal, decision to withdraw 1000 U.S. troops from Syria, movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, and assassination of Iran’s most powerful military commander—moves that culminated in the United Arab Emirates’ and Bahrain’s historic normalization agreements with Israel. And lest we forget, the Trump administration had already dismantled the physical caliphate of the world’s most notorious terrorist group in Iraq and Syria by the summer of 2019.
Most important, Trump is the first president since Dwight Eisenhower not to initiate a new foreign (or proxy) war. He has worked to end wars, not start them. Consider Trump’s decision to withdraw 1000 U.S. troops from northern Syria in October 2019, which was decried by critics as destabilizing, reckless, and impulsive. Recall that America’s "post-Cold War" high force posture in the Middle East is a historical anomaly. From 1972 to 1990, the United States was largely absent from the region. During the Cold War, Washington successfully managed America’s Middle East interests without a substantial military presence by partnering with and funding local states; that is, the U.S. was an offshore balancer, relying on the regional balance of power.
None of Trump’s critics bothered to explain why Syria is Uncle Sam’s problem. Syria’s civil war has far more direct consequences for European security than American security. Yet, Europeans have responded by pleading for the United States to get more involved. The lopsided U.S.-European defense relationship has fueled resentment among American voters, who rightly wonder why rich European countries rely on the United States to fight wars closer to their shores than to ours. Following this straightforward realist logic, Americans elected Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton.
0 Comments
Follow Us
