Welcome to this special edition of Home & Away. It is devoted to the just released National Security Strategy. Most such documents can be skimmed or safely ignored. Not this one. As I explain in the piece printed below from Project Syndicate, it constitutes the biggest redirection of U.S.
My bottom line is this: If you put up a large, un-labeled map of the world's countries on the wall and asked the average American to label all the countries s/he could, what percentage of countries do you think the average American would label correctly? My guess is maybe 20%, and that would be on a good day. I suppose the mothers and fathers of military members might care about the extent to which Trump decides to use military personnel by, say, launching an invasion of Venezuela, but I think most Americans couldn't care less about anything in this document other than the title and its use of the words "national security," which they understand to be important even if they can't explain why exactly, e.g., what's so important about Ukrainian sovereignty to US national security anyway?
And WRT those average Americans who do decide to read it - my guess is they'll understand and agree with it b/c it's written at a level that the average high schooler can comprehend and b/c it's - how to say? - muscular, bullyish, and appeals to their sense of self-righteousness and victimhood. The very same reasons they already like Trump ...
I also think most Americans at this particular point in time just wish the rest of the world would go away, as it's just too complicated to think about, and anyway, they have a football game to watch.
My point, I suppose, is that it's also a brilliantly written political piece intended to appeal to the Trump/MAGA base, which is the only population Trump really cares about. I suspect it'll swell their heads and reinforce everything that's awful about MAGA and their elected reps (including Trump). And of course, it'll distract a lot of people from what the New York Times has finally put on their front page ("Rising deductibles and premiums that could more than double are worsening fears that many will no longer be able to pay for medical care").
All that said, I really have no idea whether assessing it based on how the public reacts (or doesn't react) - and what that means for America - is at this point worth wondering about.
While I agree this is a major redirection of foreign policy Trump is not the only person responsible. Trump is the spokesperson not the architect. The decline of the UN and the rise of the EU have made cooperation of economies over ideologies more attractive to politicians like Trump. These politicians will push for agreements with countries based on business opportunities.
Years ago it would have been rare for democracies to trade with communist countries. Today India/Russia and China/the US are massive trading partners. Trump and his business allies will benefit, I'm not so sure about the rest of us.
This administration's foreign policy is its weak point. To see every country regardless of its ideology as a business venture is a mistake.
To disregard the implications of trade as part of a national security strategy is a gigantic mistake which is exactly why the world has abdicated its control of rare earths to China, a completely avoidable foot fault.
Every relationship should be hyper-realistic as it relates to national security, military threats, diplomacy, and economic rivalry.
Trump’s National Security Strategy is capitalism WITHOUT ETHICAL considerations. We don’t care who invaded another country. We won’t care if the conduct of other countries threatens US citizens. “The business of the US is only business.” “The ends justify the means.” And Trump’s “strategy” is simply that HE WILL DECIDE what businesses are favored, which countries are favored, how we will become business partners with Russia, who is a “loser” who doesn’t deserve US support, which companies or industries or individuals will get “tariff waivers,” or “tax advantages,” or contracts or pardons. His “strategy” is DEVOID of principles — NOT “protecting national borders” or “promoting democracy,” due process or equal treatment. No guiding principles. Trump did this with the GOP when he demanded that the GOP have no “party platform,” other than supporting “whatever Trump wants.” Now we will have NO national security strategy other than “whatever business interests Trump wants.”
The transactional nature of Trump and his administration is articulated clearly in this strategy. Simple-minded, thoughtless and crushingly lacking any sense of the greater good - now it is only greed. How sad that our great nation has fallen to the basest of instincts. I truly never thought I would see the day that we would lose our moral compass so completely. Schiller's was right - against stupidity, even the god's contend in vain.
Is it greed or national self-interest? Or both?With a Sovereign Debt Crisis looming, an emergence of a Chinese consumer based economy and the imminence of an EU/Russia war and EU financial collapse, Trump’s retreat to pre-eminence only in the Western Hemisphere with an offer to work with the coming BRIC economic powerhouse led by China, may be a prescient approach. ( Lots of if’s there).
Excellent article—insightful, but it left me feeling appropriately somber. If I may segue to the Venezuela boat bombing: why aren’t drones and the Coast Guard tracking where these boats refuel? They can’t make the trip to the U.S. in one stretch. They’re taking on fuel from cooperating vessels or small islands. Disrupting that supply chain seems like an obvious strategic step. We could intercept them alive and learn who they’re working for. And I truly wish Trump would stop with the destructive sensationalism—it isn’t helping us address the real issues.
the devils may be many,Donna,but i'd start with rubio-he's the smartest,least scrupulous,most amoral,has long ago abandoned any principles he may have had in service to the donald
That's been my question since January 20th and reflecting on the contents of Project 2025 I believe it begins with the likes of the Heritage Foundation and others on the right. Trump has no idea what any of this means or is about. I also don't see Rubio or Miller as anything but filters before these ideas hit Trump’s desk. Why isn't this discussed and why are we (& our elected representatives) doing their homework and dealing with this headon. Not straying off this subject too much but it's happening in every policy facet of Trump 2.0 The Heritage Foundation had a couple of years to brainstorm this strategy, gamed it all out and here we are. IMO those who resist and disagree need to become more predictive and strategic - we have 3 more years to deal with here.
Thanks. In Ian Bremmer's brief 7.22 min comment today, with focus on Europe, he suggests Stephen Miller and JD Vance as "principal people drafting and driving strategy." Bremmer does cite Rubio's involvement with policies. Comments begin near the end at 5.55 minutes. https://youtu.be/z-xsKZJFYkQ?si=4qfeDFCEm2WFHX9I
It is very sad approach to Global order & Peace! Decline is very difficult to adjust to. EU has to make the adjustment and seek partnerships with smaller states in Middle East, Central Asia & build a Security Trade bloc that fosters mutual cooperation on selected products and services that are conducive to beneficial Socio-economic growth.
Yes the rift between US & EU is real and will not make the world safer; however, it will teach people, countries & Regions to cooperate and self-sustain! To survive this world countries need to cooperate and I really hope that this cooperation will advance human abilities & aptitude to self-sustain. It is a Global challenge and a global lesson for all countries on this Planet, including USA!
MY MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: 'DO NOT COMPROMISE WITH DICTATORS & DO NOT SEEK COMFORT as these two will help you FORGET who you are!'
- Viktor HADJIEV, Rector of the World, DNA MANAGEMENT BRAND, TITLE: MAGNUS NUCLEUS for Purity of THOUGHT
You flavor your assessment with your political views. Nothing wrong with that as long as your readers recognize that.
Let me comment on two specific things:
1. In the hyper realistic view of the world the administration offers, there is a great truth: the US has only been interested in the Middle East to the extent it has had a chokehold on the US economy.
The administration gets high marks for recognizing and articulating this reality, for driving the US toward energy independence thereby releasing the chokehold, and for making peace in the region.
Sometimes, it is enough to solve a problem and just go home.
2. If one takes a critical view of non-US Nato and measures it -- sans US involvement -- they are more than capable of dealing with Russia, especially the incompetent Russia the Ukraine fiasco has revealed.
Non-US Nato is big enough, populous enough, rich enough to deal with pathetic little Russia.
What non-US Nato lacks is leadership. Without American leadership they have no plan, but they do have an American President who drove them to increase defense spending sufficiently to more than defeat Russia.
The addition of Sweden and Finland to Nato is a perfect example of how non-US Nato can take care of themselves.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with commingling national security, military might, alliances, and economic conditions when thinking globally and strategically. Unfunded plans are called dreams.
I recall as a young Army officer when we had more troops in Germany than the entire current army. Let the Europeans defend their own hearths and homes and pay their own bills.
My bottom line is this: If you put up a large, un-labeled map of the world's countries on the wall and asked the average American to label all the countries s/he could, what percentage of countries do you think the average American would label correctly? My guess is maybe 20%, and that would be on a good day. I suppose the mothers and fathers of military members might care about the extent to which Trump decides to use military personnel by, say, launching an invasion of Venezuela, but I think most Americans couldn't care less about anything in this document other than the title and its use of the words "national security," which they understand to be important even if they can't explain why exactly, e.g., what's so important about Ukrainian sovereignty to US national security anyway?
And WRT those average Americans who do decide to read it - my guess is they'll understand and agree with it b/c it's written at a level that the average high schooler can comprehend and b/c it's - how to say? - muscular, bullyish, and appeals to their sense of self-righteousness and victimhood. The very same reasons they already like Trump ...
I also think most Americans at this particular point in time just wish the rest of the world would go away, as it's just too complicated to think about, and anyway, they have a football game to watch.
My point, I suppose, is that it's also a brilliantly written political piece intended to appeal to the Trump/MAGA base, which is the only population Trump really cares about. I suspect it'll swell their heads and reinforce everything that's awful about MAGA and their elected reps (including Trump). And of course, it'll distract a lot of people from what the New York Times has finally put on their front page ("Rising deductibles and premiums that could more than double are worsening fears that many will no longer be able to pay for medical care").
All that said, I really have no idea whether assessing it based on how the public reacts (or doesn't react) - and what that means for America - is at this point worth wondering about.
As always, Richard - your analysis is spot on. Thank you for this.
While I agree this is a major redirection of foreign policy Trump is not the only person responsible. Trump is the spokesperson not the architect. The decline of the UN and the rise of the EU have made cooperation of economies over ideologies more attractive to politicians like Trump. These politicians will push for agreements with countries based on business opportunities.
Years ago it would have been rare for democracies to trade with communist countries. Today India/Russia and China/the US are massive trading partners. Trump and his business allies will benefit, I'm not so sure about the rest of us.
This administration's foreign policy is its weak point. To see every country regardless of its ideology as a business venture is a mistake.
Perhaps.
To disregard the implications of trade as part of a national security strategy is a gigantic mistake which is exactly why the world has abdicated its control of rare earths to China, a completely avoidable foot fault.
Every relationship should be hyper-realistic as it relates to national security, military threats, diplomacy, and economic rivalry.
Trump’s National Security Strategy is capitalism WITHOUT ETHICAL considerations. We don’t care who invaded another country. We won’t care if the conduct of other countries threatens US citizens. “The business of the US is only business.” “The ends justify the means.” And Trump’s “strategy” is simply that HE WILL DECIDE what businesses are favored, which countries are favored, how we will become business partners with Russia, who is a “loser” who doesn’t deserve US support, which companies or industries or individuals will get “tariff waivers,” or “tax advantages,” or contracts or pardons. His “strategy” is DEVOID of principles — NOT “protecting national borders” or “promoting democracy,” due process or equal treatment. No guiding principles. Trump did this with the GOP when he demanded that the GOP have no “party platform,” other than supporting “whatever Trump wants.” Now we will have NO national security strategy other than “whatever business interests Trump wants.”
The transactional nature of Trump and his administration is articulated clearly in this strategy. Simple-minded, thoughtless and crushingly lacking any sense of the greater good - now it is only greed. How sad that our great nation has fallen to the basest of instincts. I truly never thought I would see the day that we would lose our moral compass so completely. Schiller's was right - against stupidity, even the god's contend in vain.
Is it greed or national self-interest? Or both?With a Sovereign Debt Crisis looming, an emergence of a Chinese consumer based economy and the imminence of an EU/Russia war and EU financial collapse, Trump’s retreat to pre-eminence only in the Western Hemisphere with an offer to work with the coming BRIC economic powerhouse led by China, may be a prescient approach. ( Lots of if’s there).
Excellent article—insightful, but it left me feeling appropriately somber. If I may segue to the Venezuela boat bombing: why aren’t drones and the Coast Guard tracking where these boats refuel? They can’t make the trip to the U.S. in one stretch. They’re taking on fuel from cooperating vessels or small islands. Disrupting that supply chain seems like an obvious strategic step. We could intercept them alive and learn who they’re working for. And I truly wish Trump would stop with the destructive sensationalism—it isn’t helping us address the real issues.
The complexity and malevolent scale are beyond both the conception and articulation of Trump. Who in the regime is/are responsible for this?
the devils may be many,Donna,but i'd start with rubio-he's the smartest,least scrupulous,most amoral,has long ago abandoned any principles he may have had in service to the donald
That's been my question since January 20th and reflecting on the contents of Project 2025 I believe it begins with the likes of the Heritage Foundation and others on the right. Trump has no idea what any of this means or is about. I also don't see Rubio or Miller as anything but filters before these ideas hit Trump’s desk. Why isn't this discussed and why are we (& our elected representatives) doing their homework and dealing with this headon. Not straying off this subject too much but it's happening in every policy facet of Trump 2.0 The Heritage Foundation had a couple of years to brainstorm this strategy, gamed it all out and here we are. IMO those who resist and disagree need to become more predictive and strategic - we have 3 more years to deal with here.
Thanks. In Ian Bremmer's brief 7.22 min comment today, with focus on Europe, he suggests Stephen Miller and JD Vance as "principal people drafting and driving strategy." Bremmer does cite Rubio's involvement with policies. Comments begin near the end at 5.55 minutes. https://youtu.be/z-xsKZJFYkQ?si=4qfeDFCEm2WFHX9I
appreciate the info,donna
It is very sad approach to Global order & Peace! Decline is very difficult to adjust to. EU has to make the adjustment and seek partnerships with smaller states in Middle East, Central Asia & build a Security Trade bloc that fosters mutual cooperation on selected products and services that are conducive to beneficial Socio-economic growth.
Yes the rift between US & EU is real and will not make the world safer; however, it will teach people, countries & Regions to cooperate and self-sustain! To survive this world countries need to cooperate and I really hope that this cooperation will advance human abilities & aptitude to self-sustain. It is a Global challenge and a global lesson for all countries on this Planet, including USA!
MY MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: 'DO NOT COMPROMISE WITH DICTATORS & DO NOT SEEK COMFORT as these two will help you FORGET who you are!'
- Viktor HADJIEV, Rector of the World, DNA MANAGEMENT BRAND, TITLE: MAGNUS NUCLEUS for Purity of THOUGHT
Thank you Richard Haass
Thank you, Sir. Spot on with your analyses as always.
Sincerely,
Carlyle Stewart
You flavor your assessment with your political views. Nothing wrong with that as long as your readers recognize that.
Let me comment on two specific things:
1. In the hyper realistic view of the world the administration offers, there is a great truth: the US has only been interested in the Middle East to the extent it has had a chokehold on the US economy.
The administration gets high marks for recognizing and articulating this reality, for driving the US toward energy independence thereby releasing the chokehold, and for making peace in the region.
Sometimes, it is enough to solve a problem and just go home.
2. If one takes a critical view of non-US Nato and measures it -- sans US involvement -- they are more than capable of dealing with Russia, especially the incompetent Russia the Ukraine fiasco has revealed.
Non-US Nato is big enough, populous enough, rich enough to deal with pathetic little Russia.
What non-US Nato lacks is leadership. Without American leadership they have no plan, but they do have an American President who drove them to increase defense spending sufficiently to more than defeat Russia.
The addition of Sweden and Finland to Nato is a perfect example of how non-US Nato can take care of themselves.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with commingling national security, military might, alliances, and economic conditions when thinking globally and strategically. Unfunded plans are called dreams.
I recall as a young Army officer when we had more troops in Germany than the entire current army. Let the Europeans defend their own hearths and homes and pay their own bills.
Cheers and Merry Christmas. God bless us all.
JLM
Who are the authors of this statement?
None of those considerations you enumerate were the founding principles of the republic. They were invented by the left from the whole cloth.