Trump's retro 'America First' foreign policy
Trying to find a coherent theme in the foreign policy speech delivered Wednesday by likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is no easy task, given its inconsistencies and contradictions. But as near as we can tell, a Trump foreign policy would tend toward isolationism but with a willingness to launch massive military interventions when the Trump-in-chief found them necessary.
That would be an ill-conceived and dangerous approach to managing foreign affairs.
The isolationist strain in Trump’s teleprompter-assisted Washington speech begins with its predominant theme, “America First.” If Trump had foreign policy experts advising him, which would seem prudent given his lack of experience in that area, he had to know the weight that phrase carries.
America First was the movement headed by aviation pioneer Charles A. Lindburgh that led the resistance to U.S. intervention in World War II. U.S. reluctance to enter the conflict enabled German forces to roll through Europe. That made the fight to turn back the Nazi war machine that much more costly in lives and resources when the United States finally did enter the fray following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
On the campaign trail, Trump has called for a massive buildup of the U.S. military. But his policy speech Wednesday harkened back to the “Fortress America” approach of the “America First” movement in using that military not to project U.S. influence, but to discourage any foreign power that would contemplate an attack on the mainland.
“Many Americans must wonder why we, our politicians, seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than in defending their own. Americans,” Trump said.
If he wins, our NATO allies in Europe and Japan and South Korea in Asia better be prepared to pay the U.S. military bills or fend for themselves.
“We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves,” Trump said.
It is true that the U.S. has borne an unfair share of the cost of these security forces, but the long reach of our military has undergirded the global influence sought by Democratic and Republican administrations alike. Trump may find that political support is lacking in many of these countries to increase military spending, meaning a U.S. withdrawal would create a global security void.
Yet unlike the America First isolationists of old, Trump said there could be times when he would, reluctantly, send U.S. forces abroad in massive campaigns.
“I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he said.
Without spelling out details, Trump suggested that would be his approach to the Islamic State.
“ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly. They will be gone very, very quickly,” Trump said.
This approach may prove politically attractive. Americans are tired of foreign interventions and when they fight wars they want to fight to win.
The problem is that it is lousy foreign policy. History tells us that global disengagement by the United States creates more instability and raises the chances of small conflicts turning into major ones. A Trumpian approach, in seeking to save dollars by reducing the U.S. military footprint, could well lead to U.S. engagement in larger, more costly wars.
Nothing in the speech was likely to have reassured U.S. allies concerned about the prospects of a Trump presidency. Rather than offering assurances of rationality in pursuing foreign adventures, our would-be next president offered the volatility of Trumpism as a virtue.
“We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops. We tell them. We’re sending something else. We have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now,” he said.
In that, Trump may have already succeeded.
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.