With an impetuous tweet, during the early morning hours of Dec.19, Donald Trump declared that the U.S. would withdraw all its troops currently fighting in Syria. This ill-advised decision was apparently predicated on the naïve notion that we defeated ISIS, and that it had been eliminated, even though 15,000 to 30,000 fighters remain in the area.
Politicians from both sides of the aisle quickly reacted angrily, expressing concern about giving ISIS another life-line, and essentially handing Syria over to Iran and Russia, both of which welcomed the development. Senator Bob Corker, outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters: "It's hard to imagine that any president would wake up and make this kind of decision, with little communication, with this little preparation." Republican Senators Graham and Rubio called the plan a "colossal and huge mistake," and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis resigned in protest, worrying world leaders and U.S. allies who fear what an unchecked Trump might do.
Rubio, reacting to Mattis' abrupt resignation, expressed that the general's resignation letter confirmed fears about upcoming foreign policy decisions facing the Trump administration "that are going to undermine our security, that are going to undermine our alliances, and that are going to embolden our adversaries." The real point is that the president is making decisions by the seat of his pants, without the benefit of a cohesive foreign policy.
Analysts and practitioners agree that an effective foreign policy should include well-defined objectives to preserve national security, promote world peace in a secure global environment, maintain a balance of power through productive relations with international actors, promote a credible set of democratic and human rights values, and a cooperative involvement in international trade organizations. Allies and adversaries alike depend on a principled, intelligent and consistent approach. Given the chaotic conditions this administration tends to exhibit, be they intentional or incidental, policy development has sorely been lacking, with all resulting destabilizing consequences for the rest of the world.
Several of these foreign policy objectives overlap. These can't be fully developed within a column like this. However, a general overview should suffice to get the point across. In General Mattis' resignation letter he discusses the security element quite clearly: "One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique system of alliances and partnerships. While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies."
President Trump has made a habit of insulting our closest allies, threatening them with a trade war, showing a reckless disregard for their security concerns, while lavishing praise on contemporary autocrats like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and others. His decision to turn his back on allies that did most of the fighting against ISIS in Syria, the Kurds and Arabs, will leave them unprotected from a promised assault by Turkish forces. They are expecting a bloodbath. Right now, Turkish troops are already massing near the Kurdish-held Syrian town of Manbij, openly waiting for U.S. troops to be withdrawn. Jim Mattis and Brett McGurk, the envoy leading the international coalition fighting ISIS, who also resigned in protest, were indeed the adults in the room attempting, apparently unsuccessfully, to insure that Trump's bark was worse than his bite. Of course, our president has steadfastly maintained that he knows more than the generals.
Global security and stability depend to a large degree on predictability. Temperament and unpredictability have consequences. An erratic, irrational and unstable president influences our adversaries' threat perception, and increases the risk of miscalculation. Trump is entirely unpredictable, operates by the seat of his pants, impulsive, without thought-out policy prescriptions or strategy, and is apparently unwilling to consider international consequences.
Aside from emphasizing security and international relations, a credible foreign policy should reflect a set of values that support these objectives. During Trump's first year in office, the U.S. sharply downgraded its global pro-democratic posture. The president's support of dictators and criticism of democratic allies, as well as anti-democratic actions at home recast the country as at best an ambivalent actor on the global democratic stage. During his second year he doubled down on his embrace of dictators and spurning of democratic partners (Thomas Carothers, "Can U.S. Democracy Policy Survive Trump?," Carnegie, Oct. 1, 2018). The administration did at some point release a National Security strategy. However, it only emphasized protection against terrorism and increasing military strength. It omitted any mention of promoting human rights as a national security priority. Analysts believe that, done right, human rights strengthen, rather than weaken, American national security. Besides, strategies supporting unfocused, undeveloped objectives, are typically merely reduced to talking points.
If we want to maintain a measure of respect among those who have stood with us for the past 70 years, we need to get back to basics and develop and consistently pursue clear foreign policy objectives, not stab our allies in the back or, God forbid, leave them unprotected on the battle field. Anything short of that diminishes our moral standing, severely reduces our credibility in the world, and makes this a much more dangerous place.
No comments:
Post a Comment