Daniel Larison writes:
Robert Merry sums up Trump’s weakness:
He is merely a battery of impulses, devoid of any
philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.
The president could hardly be anything else,
since the only things that seem to concern him are how others treat him and the
status of his brand.
He makes no firm commitments, and he reverses himself
according to whatever is most expedient to him at the time.
It is almost
inevitable that he is winging it because he has no relevant experience or
knowledge that would keep him from doing so.
Trump believes in himself and
nothing else, and Chesterton observed long ago that asylums were full of such
people.
If Bannon et al. thought they could use him as
a vehicle to advance their agenda, they failed to see that he was using them
only as long as they could be valuable for helping him.
The trouble for many
Trump supporters is that Trump has never believed in any of the things they
thought he represented, and so they were backing a leader who had no intention
of risking anything on their behalf.
This was especially true on matters of
foreign policy, where Trump’s instincts for plundering and bullying could
easily be directed toward conventional hawkish goals if they weren’t already
heading that way.
Merry sums up the results of Trump’s foreign policy thus far:
On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric
with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia’s
nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO
membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in
Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela’s internal
affairs.
Trump has certainly governed as more of a
conventional hawk than his campaign suggested he would, but his actions have
been quite consistent with the blundering aggressiveness that he has displayed
for years.
His support for the war on Yemen, for example, is entirely in
keeping with the rather deranged view that Obama was not pro-Saudi enough.
Even though Obama backed the war on Yemen to the hilt for years, Trump was
always going to be more supportive and less critical because he faulted Obama
for not backing so-called “allies” as much as he should have.
On NATO
expansion, Trump doesn’t care if the alliance takes on new and unnecessary
members.
All that interests him is whether they pay what they supposedly “owe,”
and even if they don’t he doesn’t seriously propose dissolving the alliance or
withdrawing from it.
As for Syria, his decision to order an attack on their
government lines up with his contempt for international law and his desire to
seem “tough.”
He has no problem initiating illegal hostilities against other
states, but he doesn’t like it when the U.S. is expected to clean up the mess
afterwards.
Trump’s foreign policy has become almost
entirely one favored by Republican hawks because the president doesn’t hold
firm convictions on these issues and yields to what his hawkish advisers want.
He has accepted a foreign policy of endless war because he is too weak and
self-serving to pursue any other course.
No comments:
Post a Comment