You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myPalmBeachPost.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myPalmBeachPost.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myPalmBeachPost.com.

Gerson: Trump’s hard-hearted budget weakens American power


There was an unseemly glee on the part of some Trump supporters in the use of the MOAB — Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb — against a target in Afghanistan. A powerful nation may possess 21,600 pounds of precision-guided death. A great nation uses it only in a spirit of grim necessity.

Yet — considered along with 59 cruise missiles thrown at the Bashar Assad regime in Syria — a useful, kinetic statement has been made. America will no longer be constrained by President Barack Obama’s infinitely varied excuses for inaction (which a rational and determined mind can always find). Nor, apparently, will the nation follow Donald Trump’s incoherent campaign pledge to disengage itself into pre-eminence, to somehow retreat into greatness.

But a Trump Doctrine is still at the lumpy, unwhisked batter stage of intellectual baking. America acts when horrible images of murdered children catch the president’s eye, or when the ordnance employed sends a signal of toughness. This is hardly a turn toward neo-conservatism. But what is it? And how can we know if Trump, in all probability, does not yet know himself?

Uncertainty is not always a bad thing. There should be questions in the minds of foreign powers when they calculate the length of our chief executive’s fuse. (Deterring aggression against Europe during the Cold War, for example, depended on the credible belief that American presidents might be mad enough to use nuclear weapons first if the Soviet tanks began rolling in.)

The existence of real red lines — that North Korea will not have the capability to lob a nuclear missile into the Napa Valley, that the Taliban can’t control Kabul, that the Islamic State can’t be allowed a permanent, territorial home — are the essential guides to foreign policy. But a post-Iraq-invasion America better understands how expensive (in a variety of horrible ways) an invasion and occupation can be. So every American president — no matter how they campaign — will be faced with the necessity and challenge of degrading threats from a distance.

This is really the post-Cold War American doctrine: When possible, America will pre-empt and prevent emerging threats by strengthening proxies and projecting power from medium to long range.

The problem with the Trump administration’s foreign policy — as represented in its proposed budget — is that it does not fully understand our threats or the meaning of power.

American interests must be defined broadly enough to include things like the effective delivery of social services in Afghanistan, the surveillance for pandemic disease in rural Tanzania, the construction of classrooms in refugee-stressed Jordan, the settlement of conflict in Libya and the promotion of economic progress in northern Nigeria. Encouraging these outcomes represents another, very real type of American power, exercised from afar (apart from the irenic army of health, development and diplomatic professionals).

It is an absurd misnomer to call the exercise of power in these areas “soft.” The matter is simple: Will America merely respond to security threats? Or will it also try to shape the security environments in which threats emerge?

This is the context in which the Trump administration is proposing a 29 percent cut in funding for development and diplomacy, for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. “It is not a soft-power budget,” explains budget director Mick Mulvaney. “This is a hard-power budget.”

It is really a softheaded, hard-hearted budget. If passed in anything close to current form, no amount of explosive power could undo the stupidity or remedy the harm.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Friedman: Where did ‘We the People’ go?

A few days ago, I was at a conference in Montreal, and a Canadian, trying to grasp what’s happening to America, asked me a simple question: “What do you fear most these days?” “I fear we’re seeing the end of ‘truth,’” I said, “that we simply can’t agree anymore on basic facts. And I fear that...
Parker: Can words be lethal?

Words matter, journalists are fond of saying. This comes lately in the context of presidential tweets that conceivably could have serious repercussions. Otherwise, we seem conflicted about how much words should matter. Political correctness, or ignorance, has caused us to discard words and expressions that some find offensive, despite constitutional...
Letters Easy changes would simplify health care

Easy changes would simplify health care I would like to extend the letter titled, “Medicare for all solves everything” (May 28), two steps further. Every time a health care insurance company pays your bill, they take out their cut since they have administrative expenses to pay and they are profit-making organizations. Take them out of the...
COMMENTARY: Off into the jungle of political suspicion

Let it be said that for one lovely moment, House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi responded exactly as those in authority should to a shocking assault on human lives and our political system. After last week’s shooting on a baseball field, both spoke in a spirit of thoughtful solidarity and genuinely mutual concern....
Opinion: After the ISIS war, a U.S.-Russia collision?

On Sunday, a Navy F-18 Hornet shot down a Syrian air force jet, an act of war against a nation with which Congress has never declared or authorized a war. Washington says the Syrian plane was bombing U.S.-backed rebels. Damascus says its plane was attacking ISIS. Vladimir Putin’s defense ministry was direct and blunt: “Repeated combat actions...
More Stories