Trump
the Nationalist and the Role of the Modern USA, By Michael Curtis, 12/25/18, American Thinker.
The
decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria and
Afghanistan led to the announced departure on December 20, 2018 of secretary of
defense James Mattis, four-star general, often regarded as a force for
stability in the administration. Policy differences between Mattis
and the president already existed over a number of issues: NATO, Korea,
Afghanistan, Syria, the Iran nuclear deal, proposal for a military Space Force, American
attitudes to allies.
Irrespective
of the controversy over Mattis's departure, more important is the issue of the
desirable role of the United States in world affairs: should the U.S. continue or expand its overseas activities
and be the leader of the global order, or should it reduce its commitments and
withdraw from certain areas?
President
George Washington in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796 spoke of the
need for the new U.S to "pursue a different course." It
is, he argued, true U.S. policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any
portion of the foreign world. Instead, the U.S. may safely trust in
temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. The great rule of
conduct for the U.S. in regard to foreign nations is in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as
possible.
Differences
on the U.S.'s role varied throughout its history. The country and
President Woodrow Wilson were divided over U.S. policy toward World War I until
the German submarine attacks on U.S. ships and the sinking of the British Lusitania in 1917. Similarly,
strong differences were expressed over both participation in the conflict and
the conduct of that war (unconditional surrender or early armistice) and on
postwar policy; the Versailles treaty; the League of Nations, which was rejected
by isolationists in the Senate; and reconstruction of Europe after the
war. The crucial issue was the same in 1918 as it remains today: the
nature of the role and global reach of the U.S.
It
is not clear if President Donald Trump has considered the Farewell Address
message of George Washington or has aligned himself in one particular camp, but
can he be considered an isolationist? He is not a multiculturalist,
has no interest in a policy of humanitarian
military intervention or regime change, and certainly opposes the subsidizing
of the armies of other countries at U.S. expense. He has pulled out of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris climate change agreement, and the U.N.
Human Rights Council.
The
resignation of Mattis immediately followed the statement by Trump on December
19, 2018 that he intended to pull all 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, and
7,000, half of the total, stationed in Afghanistan. Mattis was
critical of the decision but spoke in a broader way of the need to maintain
strong alliances and partnerships and of the need to treat allies with
respect. He wrote that while the U.S. remains the indispensable nation
in the free world, the armed forces of the U.S. should not be the policeman of
the world. Instead, the U.S. should use all tools of American power
to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to
our alliances.
This
statement may or may not imply that Trump's withdrawal of troops is a policy of
isolationism. Yet, in spite of his powerful nationalist rhetoric,
"Make America Great Again," Trump's policies do not resemble those of
the isolationists of the 1930s, say the America First group, with attitude of
neutrality toward Hitler. Perhaps the best summation of Trump's not
consistent remarks was that of French ambassador François Delattre, who thought
Trump policy is a strange mixture of unilateralism and isolationism, one in
which the U.S. does not seek to be the last resort or enforcer of international
order.
It
is worth examining Trump's explanation for his decision to withdraw from
Syria. He claimed that his only reason for being there during his
presidency was to defeat ISIS in Syria, and this had been done. For
him, the U.S. mission was over. Here the evidence is
mixed. In December 2018, ISIS had lost Hajin, its last urban
stronghold in Syria. ISIS has lost 95% of the territory it
controlled in 2014 and no longer controls more than a small amount of territory
along the Euphrates in Syria or in Iraq, but 2,500 of its forces are still
there, and they are likely to return to insurgent tactics or use Syria for
global operations.
Whatever
the reality of the future activities of ISIS, and differences remain on whether
U.S. troops in Syria are vital to national security interests, it is difficult
to define Trump as an isolationist because of his concern about military
entanglements and their high financial cost and casualties. Nor does
it mean that the U.S. will lose its credibility on the world stage or as a
leader in the fight against terrorism. It is not self-evident that
Trump's decision to withdraw troops will embolden the insurgency.
However,
the result of Trump's action is unpredictability in relation to action by and
toward Turkey and Iran. It is crucial that Turkey be prevented from
launching an offensive against the Kurds, the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG),
an ally of the U.S. that fought ISIS and lost 1,500 doing so, but which Turkey
labels "terrorist organizations." Turkey persists in
regarding this group in northern Syria as an extension of the PKK, the
Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist group in Turkey itself.
In
any case, the ambivalent U.S.-Turkish relationship has to be resolved,
irrespective of the Kurdish issue. Turkey is friendly with Iran and
imports gas and oil from it. But it also in October 2018 released
the U.S. pastor who had been detained on charges of terrorism. Turkish
president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan bought an S-400 air defense system from Russia
and may buy F-35 fighter jets and Patriot missiles from the U.S. The
two countries are presently discussing a 20-mile buffer zone along the
Turkish-Syrian border.
It
is premature to argue that Trump's decision means a U.S. retreat from the
Middle East or abandonment of allies. Relations with Israel and
Saudi Arabia have not deteriorated, nor has the policy of limiting the role or
influence of Iran or Hezb'allah, in addition with concern about Russia.
For
Washington, the crucial problem remains: to what degree should the U.S. engage
in activities for reasons of national security? Politics is full of
difficult choices, and the discussion should focus on the main problem, not on
partisan rhetoric or premature pessimism.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment