John Bolton’s departure–whether fired or resigned-- as National Security Advisor for US President Donald Trump is only the latest example of a presidency that is disorganized and incoherent when it comes to American foreign policy. His departure will do little to change the basic tone or goals of an administration whose chief characteristic when it comes to foreign policy is one at war with itself; or more accurately, a president in conflict with the US foreign policy establishment.
There are two ways to think about US foreign policy–its goals, strategy, and tactics, and then its decision making style. While much has been made of how much Trump represented a significant break with past foreign policy practice, he still comes within the normal range of a board set of goals that goal back decades. Before Trump the US was committed to super power supremacy and support for free trade policies that favored its interests. It supported multi-national alliances such as NATO, and support for western democratic principles remained a core foreign policy objective for the US.
Despite Trump’s political rhetoric, the basic goals of US foreign policy did not change. This was true part because Trump’s selections for his advisors have come from the traditional US foreign policy establishment, including John Bolton. Although there may have been many within the US foreign policy establishment and then Trump administration who wished to take more aggressive and perhaps in some cases a more militaristic approach toward Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, such as Bolton, those who advocated more diplomatic means, both camps shared common US goals regarding these countries to contain their influence or limit nuclear capacities.
But the real problem within the Trump administration was not so much a difference of tactics or strategy among his advisors so much as it was the personal foreign policy style of Trump. Repeated stories reveal how he ignores his advisors, does not read intelligence reports, and how he acts on personal instincts and emotion. Trump also demands personal loyalty.
Bolton’s problem was twofold. One, he had very strong opinions and he was not afraid to share them, even with the president. This raised the question of personal loyalty. Second, the Trump administration’s foreign policy team has already changed over several times in less than three years, reflecting the erratic nature of the president’s personality driven approach to making decisions. These shifts in teams reflect Trump’s own lack of a worldview or consistent way to think about foreign policy. He has ranged from more military muscle when he brought in all the generals, to less militaristic and more focused on trade wars. Trump right now seems focused on trade, the economy, and a more isolationist foreign policy that relies less on threats of military might than what suited Bolton.
In some ways, Bolton was out of fashion with this period of Trump’s presidency. In reality it does not matter if Bolton was fired or resigned. This debate is for the issue of appearances. If he resigned, Bolton becomes another former Trump advisor who gets to criticize the president, if he was fired the president gets to show leadership and claim Bolton failed to do his job. The difference in resign or fired is in whose is actually making the decisions in US foreign policy, the bureaucrats and advisors or the president.
In terms of Bolton’s replacement it is not clear what foreign policy phase Trump is now in. But at least short term Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will become even closer to the president in advising on national security matters. Pompeo and Trump appear for now to work well together, and perhaps Bolton is out because he lost the battles he was picking with the Secretary of State. Any replacement for Bolton will have to be someone who get along with Pompeo, suggesting perhaps Brian Hook, Pompeo’s advisor, might be a leading candidate.
Overall, look for little change in the Trump administration’s post Bolton foreign policy. It will remain a presidency where decisions are intensively personality driven and where Trump is at odds with his own foreign policy team and establishment.
Gulberg islamabad is a great venture started by IBECHS. It is situated in the central location of the twin cities making it a goldmine for the aspiring investors. There are two main roads that conjoin at Gulberg greens including Airport road and G.T road.
ReplyDelete