Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama, Trump, and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy

Thus far, signs indicate that Donald Trump will continue to ensure that the United States plays the dominant role in policing the world.

Print Friendly


Amid all the uncertainty about what a Trump presidency means for the future role of the United States in the world, one possibility is that Trump will embrace some variant of the policies that have been pursued for the past few decades by the nation’s foreign policy establishment. Although Trump may break sharply with the establishment consensus that the United States must play the lead role in imposing order on the world, many signs indicate that Trump will continue to ensure that the United States plays the dominant role in policing the world.

Certainly, many Washington insiders feel differently about Trump. On election day, former State Department official Daniel Serwer presented the standard view of the foreign policy establishment that the “dramatic differences” between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton made Trump a problematic candidate. Trump “prides himself on unpredictability” while Clinton “has a long track record well within the post-9/11 foreign policy consensus,” Serwer explained, adding that Clinton “wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore American authority.” With his remarks, Serwer indicated that the foreign policy establishment could trust Clinton but not Trump to use American power to actively enforce a system of global order.

At times, additional observers issued more serious warnings. On the day after the election, for example, The New York Times warned that Trump would reverse decades of foreign policy practice by withdrawing the United States from its deep engagement with the world. “For the first time since before World War II, Americans chose a president who promised to reverse the internationalism practiced by predecessors of both parties and to build walls both physical and metaphorical,” the newspaper reported. “Mr. Trump’s win foreshadowed an America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself.” In short, The New York Times captured the basic establishment concern that Trump would no longer enforce the system of postwar order that his predecessors had maintained throughout the postwar period.

Enforcing the International Order

Still, not everyone agrees with the predictions. Although the foreign policy establishment remains concerned with Trump’s unpredictability and perhaps even his neglect of decades of establishment thinking, several high-level officials in the Obama administration have recently begun to suggest that the United States will continue to play the lead role in enforcing a system of international order.

Notably, President Barack Obama has provided some reassurances. Speaking with the press a few days after the election, Obama made the case that Donald Trump would not be able to simply dictate a new strategy to the vast bureaucracy that manages the nation’s foreign policy. The foreign policy decision-making process “is the result not just of the President, it is the result of countless interactions and arrangements and relationships between our military and other militaries, and our diplomats and other diplomats, and intelligence officers and development workers,” Obama explained.

Moreover, Obama insisted that much of the media commentary about Trump missed the fact that most U.S. officials continue to share the same basic foreign policy goals. Certainly, “there’s enormous continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining order and promoting prosperity around the world,” Obama stated. “That will continue.”

Finally, Obama disclosed one more important detail that pointed towards future continuity. Citing the meeting that he held with Trump at the White House after the election, Obama said that Trump “expressed a great interest in maintaining our core strategic relationships.” Trump, in other words, appeared eager to continue working closely with U.S. allies to enforce a system of global order.

Shared Priorities

Trump and the Obama administration have always shared many of the same foreign policy objectives, even though Trump made every effort during his campaign to condemn Obama’s policies as dangerous and destructive to both the United States and the world.

For starters, both Trump and the Obama administration have made it clear that they intend to ensure that the United States remains the most dominant military power in the world.

In March 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter presented the basic position of the Obama administration when he assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services that the Department of Defense “will keep ensuring our dominance in all domains.” The following month, Trump declared his support for the same objective. “Our military dominance must be unquestioned,” Trump stated.

Furthermore, Trump has displayed similar commitments on other fundamental issues. For instance, Trump has made it clear that he intends to prioritize the interests of the United States above everything else. “America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,” Trump announced during his campaign. Indeed, Trump insisted that he would base his foreign policy on the premise that the United States should only take actions in the world that work to the advantage of the United States. “We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the shared interests of our allies,” Trump stated.

Under Obama’s leadership, administration officials have taken the same approach. Although the Obama administration has not used the same slogan, it has adopted an America First strategy. Vice President Joe Biden pointed to the administration’s strategy when he toured Asia in July 2016 as part of the administration’s “rebalance” to Asia. “We’re not doing anyone any favors,” Biden stated, referring to the administration’s special focus on the region. “It’s overwhelmingly in our interest. Overwhelmingly.” Two months later, State Department official Antony J. Blinken provided more direct confirmation of the administration’s strategy. “We don’t work with other nations as a luxury, or as charity,” Blinken explained. “Our national interest demands our global engagement.”

Even President Obama has confirmed that his administration has adopted an America First strategy. When he recently commented on his decision to commit the United States to the Paris Agreement in order to address the threat of global climate change, Obama confirmed that he was primarily motivated by the U.S. interests at stake. Currently, “the biggest threat when it comes to climate change and pollution isn’t going to come from us — because we only have 300 million people,” Obama explained. “It’s going to come from China, with over a billion people, and India, with over a billion people.” With his remarks, Obama indicated that the United States needed to join the Paris Agreement to prevent countries such as China and India from harming the United States with their pollution.

Shared Approach to the Islamic State

Both Trump and Obama have also made it clear that they intend to completely destroy the Islamic State (ISIS or IS). In November 2015, Trump outlined his position during a radio commercial in which he pledged to “quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS.”

In recent months, officials in the Obama administration have articulated similar goals. This past June, for example, State Department official Brett McGurk stood before a map that showed various areas under the control of IS and announced that “we have to wipe them off this map.” A few months later, Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar position. The United States has an interest in “terminating ISIL/Daesh, as fast as possible,” Kerry stated.

In fact, the Obama administration has been busy working to fulfill its mission. In the time since the administration began its air campaign in August 2014, U.S. and coalition forces have conducted more than 15,000 airstrikes against IS and have killed more than 45,000 IS fighters. In other words, the administration has been bombing the hell out of ISIS. Clearly, IS fighters “should sleep with one eye open because we’re not gonna give them a moment’s peace,” U.S. Colonel John Dorrian explained on November 16, 2016.

In the end, the outgoing Obama administration will soon hand over power to a Trump administration that shares some of the very same foreign policy commitments. Despite the fact that the foreign policy establishment remains uncertain about Trump’s intentions, the president-elect has provided many signals that he intends for the United States to continue playing an active role in enforcing a system of global order.

As Trump has put it, using the standard language of the foreign policy establishment, his administration will mainly be “focusing on creating stability in the world.”

Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.