The Trump Doctrine

Professor Nicolai Petro has some thoughts...

Nicolai N. Petro is Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island and served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under President George HW Bush.

I see the Trump Doctrine, at least as articulated by Vice-President Vance, as little more than vainglorious political grandstanding. A brief look at his main points shows that there is no depth of thought behind them

First, “articulate a clear American interest.” But there is no indication of any awareness about how this will affect other nations, and how they might respond, to our detriment. This is an irresponsible way to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

Second, pursue diplomacy “aggressively.” At the very heart of diplomacy, however, is patience. Any haste or use of force to achieve a one-sided result result typically results in a failure to achieve any lasting objectives. “Aggressive diplomacy” is contradiction in terms.

Third, “when you can’t solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it.” It is telling that the vice-president uses the word “when” rather than “if.” It suggests a lack of faith in diplomacy, that will lead to military strikes becoming the preferred option.

Obviously, the vice-president is selling slogans, rather than engaging in a thoughtful foreign policy discussion. But even this simplistic rendition of the “Trump Doctrine” leaves many unanswered questions.

First, what global problems, if any, does the Trump Administration see as not resolvable by “overwhelming military power.” Does the U.S. have the tools to help resolve such problems, or does it simply tell itself that such problems are not “a clear American interest?”

Second, how much power is “overwhelming” enough? Since this is a matter of perception, it can only be applied to nations with whom the U.S. has a vast disparity of force. It therefore can never be applied to another nuclear power.

It will also not work against nations that refuse to recognize “overwhelming” U.S. power as sufficient reason to stop resisting. This could be for any number of existential, ideological or religious reasons, which make U.S. power essentially irrelevant. The U.S. clearly had “overwhelming military power” against both Vietnam and Afghanistan, but was still defeated.

Also, even if the U.S. uses overwhelming force, there can be no guarantee that this will achieve the desired result. If the result is not capitulation, how much damage should the U.S. administration then be willing to inflict, before “victory” on its terms becomes morally repugnant?

This brings us to the final point of the Trump Doctrine—"get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.” Although he only did so indirectly, Vance is right to highlight the disconnect between America’s military and political objectives, as the reason for the persistent failure of American military actions overseas. But the Trump Doctrine does nothing to bridge this gap. Quite the opposite. It lowers the bar for innumerable, fleeting military escapades, whose only benefit will be to boost domestic political ratings, but will leave the United States and the rest of the world more unstable and insecure.

Just as it did in Iran.