Trump Has Exposed America’s Strategic Drift and Void

A head of state or government’s intellectual acumen, knowledge, and cultural background do not necessarily guarantee the quality of their foreign policy. History offers many examples of this, in the United States and elsewhere. But the combination of genuine stupidity, ignorance, and amorality makes this impossible. The Trump administration’s disaster in the conduct of international relations is a real-time demonstration of this.

Read on...

A head of state or government’s intellectual acumen, knowledge, and cultural background do not necessarily guarantee the quality of their foreign policy. History offers many examples of this, in the United States and elsewhere. But the combination of genuine stupidity, ignorance, and amorality makes this impossible. The Trump administration’s disaster in the conduct of international relations is a real-time demonstration of this. While the real estate magnate has built an entire political apparatus in his own image, there is no longer any counterweight to his erratic behavior. Presenting Marco Rubio as the adult in the room is, moreover, nothing more than a doomed attempt at self-reassurance: he may be less out of his mind than his boss and his colleague at the Department of War, but that doesn’t make him the strategist of the century! Submission also debases the soul.

On both sides of the Atlantic, criticism is harsh and constant. Full-scale collusion with Russia has long been seen, rightly so, as the central element of this disaster. Trump’s recent trip to China was a rout in the open field, whether on Taiwan, competition in artificial intelligence, or trade. The war against Iran now appears to be a fiasco that nearly all Gulf countries—not to mention others—are realizing: it has made the region less secure, caused major damage to global economies, and allowed the totalitarian Iranian regime—even if weakened by a series of strikes—to prove itself indestructible. Trump has also, as I have often pointed out, dealt yet another blow to an already weakened international legal order. The systematic sabotage of development aid, his withdrawal from numerous international organizations, and the cutting of most funding for democracy assistance efforts—particularly through independent media—have permanently weakened U.S. influence. The policies pursued in Washington have changed the perception of the United States among citizens who were once most well-disposed toward it: they are no longer viewed as an ally by a majority of citizens in democracies, but often as a threat—for one-fifth of Europeans who consider them more dangerous than North Korea and China—a source of insecurity, if not even an enemy on par with Moscow and Beijing.

There is, therefore, indeed a “Trump rupture,” for even previous presidents—who, for different reasons, were rightly criticized for both adventurous policies and a refusal to act—had not damaged the United States’ image to this extent—and, of course, this is not merely a matter of “image.” Something has undoubtedly been broken, something that will not return, and something that is fundamental among allies: trust.

A History of Lost Wars

Through a paradox that is too rarely highlighted, the Trump presidency also leads to introspection about the past and, by extension, the long term—something that many defenders of the transatlantic bond—including the author of these lines—have failed to do. What wars has the world’s leading military and economic power actually won? Certainly the two world wars, and this compels us Europeans to eternal gratitude toward those who gave their lives to save us. Let us add to this, without any comparison, the first Gulf War, where Washington, alongside its allies, forced Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and subsequently pay significant compensation. In a way, although it came late, the intervention by the United States and NATO in general against the Milošević regime brought an end to a genocidal war and ultimately led to the arrest of the Serbian nationalist leader and some of his accomplices. The U.S. military intervention during the Korean War may have averted the worst, but it was not a true victory. Vietnam was the fiasco we all know, and the campaign in Afghanistan ended in disaster. The second war against Iraq gave rise to the ISIS menace, and no one can say that the country is fully stabilized today. The first phase of the intervention in Libya was, to say the least, justified by compelling humanitarian reasons, but here too neither the Americans nor the Europeans had a serious plan for the post-Gaddafi era.

Let us add that the United States refused to intervene when it could have done so at a relatively low cost—nothing like the costs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq—particularly in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. Its efforts to counter jihadism in Africa have been more than limited.

While it is true that America’s wars have generally not been successful, its deterrent power has potentially prevented many more. Without Washington, the USSR could have absorbed Western Europe without too much difficulty or resistance. It is not certain that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines would not be under some form of Chinese control. Even Iran would have even greater influence and clout in a Greater Middle East. In this regard, the United States has been a unique and irreplaceable provider of security in vast areas of the world, even if the last twenty years have seen it play this role in an increasingly limited and often inconsistent manner—particularly in Syria and Ukraine.

Now, they fulfill this deterrent function only very partially—if at all. Trump carried ...