Steven Metz
Editor’s Note: This will be Steven Metz’s final weekly column for World Politics Review. We’d like to take this opportunity to thank Steve for more than six years of keen insights into U.S. strategy, national security and defense policy, all delivered with pristine logic in a uniquely direct style.
Last week, I argued that President Donald Trump’s foreign and national security policy has produced few tangible gains but has caused a dangerous decay in America’s alliances and partnerships and an erosion of U.S. global influence. Under Trump’s direction, the approach to the world that served the United States well for decades has crumbled, but there is no discernible replacement. The primary reason for that is Trump’s attitude toward statecraft, particularly his failure to follow time-tested principles of strategy. But there are three additional flaws in how Trump has handled U.S. national security and foreign policy. Is there any way to fix them?
With power dispersed between the executive and legislative branches and public support for a given policy still important, effective strategy must reflect a broad presidential vision that spells out national priorities and objectives. Then, to augment security and promote national interests, a successful president must build and empower a capable team both at the senior level and in the middle rungs of government, where much of the day-to-day work of statecraft is actually done. The president must establish and reinforce a positive command climate to ensure that this team works when he or she is not there. Successful presidents recognize the limits of their own expertise and time and thus delegate. They only personally intervene in making or implementing policy when doing so can have a major effect, such as breaking up an impasse in Congress or among their Cabinet or energizing a significant shift in policy. Presidents must be selective in how they engage, and on which issues.
Trump has not followed these historically validated principles. He has not articulated a clear vision on how to make the United States more secure or influential, instead focusing on short-term policy gains and high-profile trips abroad that attract extensive media coverage but have little real effect. His strategy is high on style and short on substance. Trump’s team of senior advisers suffers constant churn and often seems divided on key issues. The president hasn’t brought any discipline to the process, sometimes vacillating between positions, tossing out presidential guidance via Twitter—which may or may not reflect written policy or the statements of his senior advisers—and then leaving subordinates to figure out what it all means and explain it to America’s allies and partners. There is no indication that Trump defers to true experts when grappling with complex policy issues, from his trade war with China to Iran’s nuclear program, instead relying on his own apparent instincts.
Effective strategy also requires consistency. Timing and optics matter, just not in the way Trump thinks. Too much consistency is admittedly a bad thing, possibly leading to rigidity or predictability. Strategists must sense when a particular policy or approach is losing its sway and when an adversary has adapted or innovated. But too little consistency is equally damaging, leaving friends and foes guessing and opening the door to dangerous misperceptions and miscalculations. Trump comes up short on these principles, as well.
While the United States badly needs a carefully calibrated and thoughtful transformation of its global strategy and role in the world, Trump has not engineered one, instead barreling from issue to issue, challenge to challenge, and position to position without any discernible framework or plan. And with limited understanding of how adversaries and partners see the world, Trump has not developed a sense of timing in his statecraft, dooming most of his initiatives, whether nuclear talks with North Korea or his campaigns of “maximum pressure” against Iran and Venezuela, which have either been rolled out haphazardly or which Trump seems to have lost interest in after the cameras turned away.
The best Americans can hope for is that Trump’s penchant for avoiding outright catastrophe continues to the end of his administration.The optics of the Trump strategy have been particularly damaging, with the president praising repressive dictators while insulting America’s steadfast allies. At times he seems disdainful of the values that undergird the American political system, preferring transactional economic gains that might be useful on the 2020 campaign trail but do little to make the United States more secure or influential in the long term. In fact, Trump shows little concern at all for what America’s standing in the world will be after his presidency.
Successful American presidents work hard to convince the public that they are advancing U.S. national security and promoting national interests. Public opinion about foreign and national security policy matters in the American political system, so effective presidents consistently sell their vision of the world to voters. They also manage expectations, helping the public understand that foreign policy is important but seldom produces quick, discernible “wins.” Progress comes slowly; there are frequent setbacks or unexpected problems. Most threats must be contained or managed, rather than eradicated.
Understanding this does not come naturally to most of the electorate; grasping strategy is an acquired skill. The inclination of most of the American public is to equate statecraft with a sporting event, with a clear opponent and, in most cases, a decisive outcome with one side winning and the other losing. Trump often reinforces this flawed understanding, adding to his inability to follow the time-tested principles of strategy.
Is there any chance that Trump could fix all these flaws and follow what history shows are the attributes of effective presidential statecraft? Of course, that would require Trump depersonalizing and depoliticizing his approach, allowing administration officials with expertise and experience to truly lead, and focusing on the long-term strengthening of American security rather than on the 2020 election.
It might sound simple enough, and history, after all, provides guidelines. But given Trump’s personality and his failure to develop a clearer understanding of the logic of strategy since becoming president, the chances of it happening are slim. The best Americans can hope for is that Trump’s penchant for avoiding outright catastrophe continues to the end of his administration, whenever that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment