{"id":31350,"date":"2017-04-13T14:30:51","date_gmt":"2017-04-13T04:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=31350"},"modified":"2017-04-13T16:33:33","modified_gmt":"2017-04-13T06:33:33","slug":"trump-mill-ponds-dropped-wrenches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/trump-mill-ponds-dropped-wrenches\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump, mill-ponds and dropped wrenches"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Despite last week\u2019s cruise missile attack in Syria, the outlook for the strategic policy of the Trump administration is still deeply uncertain. After all, one missile strike doesn\u2019t make a strategic policy. And US declaratory policy remains confused. Charitably, some commentators have simply decided that the \u2018Trump doctrine\u2019 involves a deliberate decision to forsake doctrine<\/a>. Well, that\u2019s possible. But it\u2019s hard to explain why, in that case, Trump went to such lengths to articulate an explicit doctrine in his Inaugural Address\u2014namely, a doctrine of \u2018America First\u2019.<\/p>\n True, in the days since that address, the doctrine\u2019s been blurred by messages of continuity in US strategic policy emanating from the vice-president, and the secretaries of State and Defence. But those assurances have been proffered with no attempt to reconcile them with the president\u2019s earlier vision. And Trump seems now, much as he was on the campaign trail, to be just as hostile\u2014or at best indifferent\u2014to the principles of liberalism that have defined US global leadership since World War 2. Those principles include free trade, international institutions, and support for democracy and human rights. Moreover, he seems at best a reluctant ally, categorising others as free-riders and the alliances themselves as obsolete.\u00a0(News flash: After meeting the NATO Secretary-General at the White House overnight, President Trump has declared <\/a>that NATO’s no longer obsolete because of new efforts it is making to counter terrorism.)<\/p>\n But the problem\u2019s not just one of declaratory policy. The influence \u2018webs\u2019 around the president are both unsettled and unsettling. Where do Messrs Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster, Kushner and Bannon all fit, let alone the president\u2019s daughter? What weight can be given to statements by one of those? Decision-making within the administration is essentially a black box. Media with some access to Washington sources currently offer us a post-event description of how a particular decision<\/a> unfolded, but frequently disagree<\/a> on the key decision point. And there\u2019s a new game of \u2018spot the influencer\u2019 being played out where photographs of particular events are subject to exegetical analysis, much in the manner of the CIA\u2019s assessments of ranking within the Soviet politburo during the Cold War. What should we make of the seating arrangements<\/a> for Trump\u2019s dinner with Xi Jinping? Or of Bannon\u2019s presence in the Mar-a-Lago Situation Room<\/a> during the attack on the Syrian airfield?<\/p>\n