The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: truman national security project
The Weakness of President Trump

The Weakness of President Trump

This is happening, America.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump—a man who has never held elected office—swept the Super Tuesday primaries last night, dominating seven of eleven contests. His authoritarian-enamored supporters remain inexorably drawn more than anything else to the candidate’s presumed strength.

That strength is supposedly a massive correction to the perceived weakness and fecklessness of President Obama on the world stage. The globe may be on fire, but it will fall in line—if only the American president would be more pugnacious and demanding towards allies and adversaries alike. In this view, Trump’s force of personality is a panacea; his self-fulfilling assurances about his own intelligence, likability, and winning record cease to be a means to policy and become the policies in and of themselves.

But what if Trump’s supporters aren’t just wrong (they are), but catastrophically so? What if that so-called strength—the forwardness, unapologetic aggression, and of course the distaste for “political correctness”—that they so love about candidate Trump turns out to be a debilitating weakness for President Trump and, by extension, our country?

Imagine, for a moment, how President Trump would actually function on the world stage.

Imagine President Trump listening to speeches at the United Nations General Assembly. Say another foreign leader bruises his ego, perhaps with a well-intentioned joke or a purposefully mocking barb. President Trump will not be able to sue, so where will he turn next? From denouncing the leader with juvenile insults to espousing racist sentiments on the world stage, the consequences are sure to be embarrassing.

Imagine President Trump’s childish demands falling on deaf ears in the international community. Suppose Mexico refuses to pay for his luxurious wall, or that allies like Japan and Germany decline to pay tribute for hosting U.S. military bases on their soil. President Trump will not be able to bend them to his will through endless bloviating, so what will become of American credibility? From the alienation of longtime U.S. allies to a full-scale evaporation of U.S. soft power, the consequences are sure to be crippling.

Imagine President Trump in top national security briefings, surrounded by patriotic men and women trying desperately to educate and advise him on the nuances of U.S. foreign policy. If he makes good on his campaign promises, he’ll be ordering them to pursue catastrophic escalations with rival states or execute war crimes against civilians and combatants alike. President Trump will not be able to force them to abide by his un-American dictates, so what will happen to our nation’s civil workforce? Whether we see mass resignations or a full-scale revolt by the people who spend their professional lives working to keep us safe, the consequences are sure to be disastrous.

There are plenty of policy-oriented reasons to decry the prospect of Trump as commander-in-chief—he has a childlike understanding of the world around him, including an astounding ignorance of the details about our enemies, the value of our allies, and the capabilities of our own country. There are obviously moral arguments against him too, among them his unabashed support of torture and his coziness towards any dictator that bats his eyes in Trump’s direction. But perhaps more than anything else, it is Trump’s temperament that disqualifies him from leadership: The “strength” he loves to flex to raucous applause would leave the United States weaker, isolated, and sapped of all credibility.

Trump would be beyond embarrassing for the United States on the world stage. His gaffes, infantilism, and self-assured ignorance would, intentionally or not, systematically destroy our reputation as a world leader, taking down the international order that the greatest generation raised from the ashes of World War II along the way. Trump’s unpredictable and fragile ego — the ego of a man who sends rebuttals to his “losers and haters” signed, literally, in gold sharpie—would become the proxy for how the United States is perceived in the world.

Since 1990, Trump has bemoaned that America is “laughed at” around the world. It is an emotional sentiment that resonates well with his base, but the joke is on them. Should President Trump make his way to the Oval Office, there is little doubt the world will be laughing even harder.

Graham F. West manages The Whistlestop (@thewhistle_stop), a platform for holding candidates and elected officials accountable on issues of national security and foreign policy throughout the 2016 cycle. Views expressed are his own.

Photo: U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses a news conference regarding issues on undocumented immigrants in Beverly Hills, California, July 10, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Alcorn  

Obama, Our Man in Havana

Obama, Our Man in Havana

Good for you, Mr. President. The announcement that President Obama will travel to Cuba in March is welcome news and a bold step in the advancement of his policy of engagement toward the island that began in earnest on December 17, 2014.

The President’s strategy is to empower the Cuban people and pressure the Cuban government for economic and political change through engagement rather than isolation. U.S. policy previously sought to isolate Cuba and force a collapse of the Castro regime and its communist system, but 54 years is a long time to pursue a failed foreign policy. Instead of bringing about regime change, the old approach to Cuba and the U.S. embargo have given the Cuban government a rallying point and an easy excuse for their lack of growth and development. It is past time to change course.

President Obama’s decision to re-establish diplomatic relations, to include Cuba in the Summit of the Americas, to negotiate the re-opening of the U.S. Embassy in Havana and the Cuban Embassy in Washington, DC, and most recently, to negotiate a commercial airline travel deal between the two countries are all significant steps in a powerful new approach to Cuba. Despite what critics say, these steps are designed to help the Cuban people, bringing them back into the fold so that we can start talking about human rights, political opening and democracy, civil society, economic policy, trade, and security.

Ultimately and over time, American change in policy and the eventual lifting of the U.S. embargo by Congress will help the Cuban people. Cuba ceased to be a national security threat years ago. Therefore, the objective should be to help the Cuban people and to empower them to seek political and economic change on the island for themselves. President Obama’s change in policy is a good first step to helping the Cuban people realize it is up to them to grow their economy and make the structural adjustments – both economically and politically – that will keep young Cubans in their country and incentivized to reach their potential.

Having been to Cuba, I have seen firsthand that the Cuban people are ready and eager for change that is happening already. Cubans today are hopeful about the future in ways that they have not been in years, and they are quick to tell you that the agreement between President Obama and Raúl Castro to re-establish diplomatic relations has given them this hope. Despite years of anti-American indoctrination, the Cuban people are embracing Americans and are eager for more American tourists, investment, and opportunities that expanded trade and travel will bring. They are giddy that Obama’s shift in policy will eventually lead to the lifting of the embargo. One Cuban went so far as to say, “If Obama could be president in Cuba, he would be elected to succeed Raúl.”

Yes, the Cuban government wants to calibrate the rate of change and reform on their own terms. Yes, they want to maintain the benefits of the Revolution, which they consider to be education, health care, the social safety net, and cultural heritage, while carefully choreographing the succession from the “historical leadership” to the next generation of Cuban communists. But make no mistake – the tsunami of change is coming to Cuba. Indeed, time has chipped away at the fear the regime has over the Cuban people, and the forces in favor of change are great and growing. The desire for freedom is strong, the entrepreneurial spirit is palpable, and the groundswell of support for a new era in U.S.-Cuban relations is evident on the island.

There is no symbol more powerful than President Obama traveling to Cuba to demonstrate America’s commitment to and solidarity with the Cuban people in their quest for change and greater economic and political opportunity. With all eyes on his visit, he has the chance to call out the Cuban regime for its human rights abuses, to call for freedoms of expression, assembly, and the press in Cuba, and to be the champion for change that the Cuban people want. In going to Cuba, President Obama is not just making history; he’s on the right side of history.

Amanda Mattingly is a senior director at The Arkin Group and a Truman National Security Fellow. She previously served as a foreign affairs officer at the State Department. Views expressed are her own.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro meet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York September 29, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque 

President Obama Is A Tough Leader — Just Look At China

President Obama Is A Tough Leader — Just Look At China

Much of the criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy has been that he projects weakness – that somehow, murderous thugs like ISIL would abandon their posts and flee for their lives if President Obama was just…tougher, somehow.

Projecting toughness in this case, it seems, comes down to talking tough and being willing to risk another world war over every slight, incident, or threat, real or perceived.

It is true that everyone must understand that the U.S. is committed to protecting our allies and interests, no matter the costs. But what does that actually look like? It seems that many of the tough talkers have not thought that far ahead.

An under-discussed example of how President Obama has projected actual toughness in tackling a national security challenge is China. It’s a complex relationship with a nation that is committed to pursuing its own interests – occasionally at the expense of its neighbors, our allies.

The President has never hesitated to push back on the Chinese, not just with rhetoric – though that has been necessary at times – but with actions. Concerned that the Chinese were attempting to occupy international waters by building artificial islands that could be transformed into military installations, the President sent a destroyer through those waters, demonstrating that they did not in fact belong to China and that we were more than capable of projecting the kind of force needed to keep them open.

When hackers compromised the Office of Personnel Management and investigation revealed links to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, President Obama pushed back hard, threatening to sanction companies or individuals who participate in cyber-attacks; and while we have no illusions that China has somehow given up cyber-warfare cold turkey, it forced China to publicly state that they would do just that.

And, recognizing that no progress could be made addressing climate change without the participation of the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the President pushed publicly and privately for China to commit to serious, meaningful reductions in emissions. The result was a landmark bilateral agreement where, for the first time, China agreed to concrete targets for emissions reductions. That, in turn, helped pave the way for the COP21 agreement reached in Paris.

The President also refused to let China set the economic rules of the road in the Pacific – say what you will about some of the details of the Trans Pacific Partnership, but by bringing ourselves closer economically with key allies like Japan and the Philippines, we lift them up, strengthen our own hand, and diminish China’s ability to dominate the region economically. It’s a recognition that drone strikes or special forces represent only one aspect of American power.

Toughness is not about threatening to “carpet bomb” someone or to “bomb the [expletive] out of them.” Blind tough talk accomplishes nothing and risks much.

Rather than tough talk, true leaders are calm and steadfast in the face of multiple threats. True leaders stick to their values and stick by their allies. And a true leader knows that we must use every tool in our arsenal to stare down those threats and take advantages of the opportunities this century offers us.

There has not been as much written about the so-called “pivot to Asia” as there has been about ISIL, but the challenges and opportunities in addressing a rising China are just as great. When historians look back on this period they will note that China repeatedly tested the boundaries and the norms of the international system – and, at each turn, was met by a President who pushed back forcefully in defense of our values, our interests, and our allies.

That is a legacy of toughness that no amount of talk could match.

Brandon Fureigh is the Chief Strategy Officer of the Truman National Security Project.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping during their meeting at the start of the climate summit in Paris November 30, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Democratic Candidates Must Remain The Standard Bearers On Climate Change

Democratic Candidates Must Remain The Standard Bearers On Climate Change

During the last Democratic debate, moderators from CNN failed to ask even a single question about climate change or clean energy. In fact, despite record global temperatures in the past months, extreme flooding from North Carolina to Scotland, and increasingly dire predictions about shrinking coasts and expanding deserts, there has been far too little conversation about climate change so far during the 2016 campaign.

Failing to address climate change is a mistake—one the party, the nation, and ultimately the world cannot afford to repeat at next Sunday’s fourth #DemDebate.

With Lindsey Graham out of the race, the Republican field is—at least until the eventual nominee might choose to rush to the center for the general election—effectively a wash for serious policy prescriptions on climate change. Between Sen. Ted Cruz inviting climate deniers to Congress, Sen. Marco “I’m Not a Scientist” Rubio’s wishy-washiness, and frontrunner Donald Trump’s characteristically confusing and wrong conviction that climate change doesn’t exist, there is scant hope for the GOP to offer anything substantive on this front.

But “because the Republicans aren’t doing it” isn’t the only reason for the Democrats to talk about climate change; if that were our only criteria for debate topics, each one would take days.

For one thing, fighting climate change is a national security issue. The men and women of the U.S. military are the ones deployed to deal with the consequences of climate change, whether that means resource shortages that empower extremist groups in already fragile states, or natural disasters requiring urgent humanitarian aid. And whatever love some lobbyists may have for fossil fuels, I know plenty of sailors who protected traffic through the Persian Gulf choke point and personally saw soldiers protecting fuel convoys in Iraq who have a clear view of oil’s harmful effect on our—and their—safety.

Moreover, fighting climate change isn’t a zero-sum game between economy and environment. When we work to move towards 50 percent clean energy nationwide by the year 2030, we are creating the clean energy tech that will drive the next century just like oil did the last and getting the jump on our competitors around the world. And a bonus? Almost 10 percent of those employed in the solar industry in particular are U.S. veterans, finding an outlet for their technical and leadership skills after returning home.

But beyond these benefits, President Obama’s efforts to coordinate and lead the global fight against climate change should simply be a point of pride for the Democratic Party. At home, his EPA’s Clean Power Plan raised standards across the board while letting states choose how to meet their individualized targets. And abroad, his State Department secured not only the first bilateral climate deal ever with China, but also a truly global climate deal that creates a reporting structure to hold every country—rich and poor, large and small—accountable for showing progress on the world stage.

This election, voters will head to the polls juggling national security and economic issues alike. Climate change touches both of these policy areas and more, and it is time for Democratic candidates to press their advantage on this key national challenge. 2016 is a chance for every candidate who shares the values of security and prosperity to continue President Obama’s legacy of decisive, comprehensive action. Here’s hoping we hear that incredibly opportunity reflected on the debate stage next week.

—

Jonathan Freeman is a fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a Ph.D. student in international relations at the London School of Economics. He has deployed twice to Iraq, once to Afghanistan, and is currently in the U.S. Army Reserves.

Photo: Participants are seen in silhouette as they look at a screen showing a world map with climate anomalies during the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, December 8, 2015.  REUTERS/Stephane Mahe