“Despite the dangers of America-first isolationism and overextending preemptive action, overall the policy represents a good first step and good step forward.”
Trump’s national security speech on Monday outlined ideas that fall under what many call “principled realism.” This is a school of thought that recognizes that every nation acts in their own self-interest, and the people of the United States should act in ways that are best for theirs. When Trump calls it the “America first” strategy, there is some natural concern that this represents a xenophobic and fortress style American isolationism, but for the most part the policy stresses American commitment to maintaining its place in the world order and strengthening its alliances.
Increased missile defense
Trump called for a national strategy that increases missile defense capability and force projection in both East Asia and Eastern Europe. This is good news and shows a good grasp of the potential problems in the area, and matches suggestions, at least in its broad outlines, from the report from RAND.
The recommendations were short on specific details, but one change mentioned includes setting up a missile defense system towards North Korea that could defeat missile threats prior to launch. This is intriguing and suggests that the U.S. retains the rights to preemptively strike North Korean (and by implication, anybody else’s) potential attacks.
The missile defense systems in Europe were also specifically cited, only the named potential adversary was Iranian missiles. This is a diplomatic gesture, but the dominant geopolitical threat in the area remains Russia due to their aggressive behavior.
Forward Defense
Forward defense is a strategy that includes “fielding military capabilities designed to deny America access in times of crisis and to contest our ability to operate freely in critical commercial zones during peacetime.” “Deny” is the key word as anti-access areal denial (A2AD) is the buzz word boogey man in policy circles. The strategy statement from Trump correctly identified a potential threat and aggression from both actors.
Unfortunately, they don’t offer much beyond boiler plate rhetoric to decrease the bureaucracy in development and increase funding acquisition. Of course, demanding detail in a policy statement is like wanting a paragraph-long tweet, but the US has had issues with improving their weapons ever since infighting prevented the widespread use of Gatling gun in the Civil War, so the follow up remains important. Overall, the U.S. wants to maintain credible deterrents in both East Asia and Eastern Europe. This is good, as the best way to win a war is to never have to fight one.
Terrorism
At the same time as wanting to strengthen alliances, firm up defensive plans (especially in the Baltics), and have credible deterrence, Trump talked a good deal about encouraging homeland investment in state and local law enforcement. This sounds a good deal like a Fortress America approach that doesn’t confront the problem before it requires bloody military intervention. But Trump said he “will take direct action against terrorists and pursue terrorists who threaten the homeland and U.S. citizens regardless of where they are.”
This suggests both preemptive unilateral action around the world and not just a Fortress America approach. Tough talk sounds strong and many like it, but it can lead to blowback and cause more problems than it solves. In contrast to Fortress America, a policy approach that ignores threats until they are bombing Pearl Harbor, this strategy could over-extend the US and make our policies reactive to threats. Like the game of whack a mole on a global scale, America spends money and time fighting emerging threats to such a degree that they don’t stop the long-term drivers of terrorism: cultural and spiritual nihilism.
Despite the dangers of America-first isolationism and overextending preemptive action, overall the policy represents a good first step and good step forward. Trump recognized some of the major problems with Obama’s foreign policy, (with the usual liberal outrage), and offered new solutions. There is some material that suggests an isolationist Fortress America approach, but large parts of the outline contained good details that suggest the U.S. will be engaged with NATO and SEATO allies against named competitors (and potential threats) like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.
There is even suggestion that Trump will allow the U.S. the right to take unilateral and preemptive action against terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and threats that require it.
