President Trump and his administration have always had a mixed-messaging problem. Whether it had to do with the future of NATO, relations with the European Union, a rapprochement with Russia or a trade war with China, Mr. Trump has made norm-shattering pronouncements while his top advisers worked behind the scenes to preserve the status quo.
Most recently, his insistence that Congress pony up $5.7 billion for a wall at the southern border and his threat to keep the federal government closed for “months or even years” if he doesn’t get his way have undermined Vice President Mike Pence’s efforts to reach a compromise over the shutdown with Democratic lawmakers.
But the president’s mercurial approach to the conflict in Syria is in a category all its own. After Mr. Trump stunned the world last month by ordering the withdrawal of all 2,000 American troops in Syria within 30 days, the administration began backtracking almost immediately.
By the time John Bolton, the national security adviser, visited Israel over the weekend, the president’s order was effectively reversed. Mr. Bolton laid down conditions, including the complete defeat of the Islamic State and guarantees from Turkey that it won’t attack America’s Kurdish allies. In other words, American troops are there to stay for months, or years, or indefinitely.
Mr. Trump insisted in a tweet on Monday that the way things stand is “no different from my original statements.” But which senior administration official should the nation and the world believe — the boss or everyone below him?
In addition to a loss of American credibility, the collateral damage in all this mess includes the departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Brett McGurk, the State Department official managing the global coalition against the Islamic State. They resigned in protest over an order from the commander in chief that could now be null and void.
Or maybe it’s not. One administration official said he thought an order for a 120-day pullout remained in effect, perhaps a sign of an internal struggle over the policy.
Deferring the troop withdrawal — which was opposed by politicians across the spectrum — would be a necessary course correction. But the incident was also a missed opportunity. The United States is overdue for an honest debate about the future of its troops fighting terrorism in Syria and 79 other locations around the world, and Mr. Trump could have contributed constructively to that cause.
But drastic changes in military strategy are difficult to execute swiftly, especially when those decisions are made without input from a president’s national security team, Congress and allied forces, as Mr. Trump’s Syria swerve clearly was.
The United States shouldn’t stay in Syria forever. But it shouldn’t leave based on a tweet, either.
And this episode resurfaces profoundly troubling questions: Who speaks for the United States? Is the commander in chief being thwarted by his own national security team?
There is infighting in every administration. This goes beyond that.
Mr. Trump’s penchant for disinformation long ago left America’s friends scratching their heads over what to believe. Now they also must contend with a president who is likely to be overruled or redirected by his advisers.
That has had some benefit given Mr. Trump’s lack of experience in national security, his refusal to consider long-term strategic interests and the need for a certain degree of reliability in international affairs. Because of the efforts of Mr. Mattis and others, the United States remains in NATO despite Mr. Trump’s dismay with the alliance, for instance.
But the degree to which senior officials have had to reverse or slow roll precipitous, ill-considered, even dangerous decisions by the president also erodes civilian control of the military and sows uncertainty.
Such an approach will embolden adversaries, confuse friends and confound the servicemen and servicewomen who depend on their president for clear, principled leadership, especially when they are putting their lives at risk.
Mr. Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are crisscrossing the Middle East this week to reassure friendly governments that the administration is pursuing a coherent agenda, particularly in building a coalition against Iran. Is Mr. Trump also on board?
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Who Speaks for America?
Opinion | Who Speaks for America?
President Trump and his administration have always had a mixed-messaging problem. Whether it had to do with the future of NATO, relations with the European Union, a rapprochement with Russia or a trade war with China, Mr. Trump has made norm-shattering pronouncements while his top advisers worked behind the scenes to preserve the status quo.
Most recently, his insistence that Congress pony up $5.7 billion for a wall at the southern border and his threat to keep the federal government closed for “months or even years” if he doesn’t get his way have undermined Vice President Mike Pence’s efforts to reach a compromise over the shutdown with Democratic lawmakers.
But the president’s mercurial approach to the conflict in Syria is in a category all its own. After Mr. Trump stunned the world last month by ordering the withdrawal of all 2,000 American troops in Syria within 30 days, the administration began backtracking almost immediately.
By the time John Bolton, the national security adviser, visited Israel over the weekend, the president’s order was effectively reversed. Mr. Bolton laid down conditions, including the complete defeat of the Islamic State and guarantees from Turkey that it won’t attack America’s Kurdish allies. In other words, American troops are there to stay for months, or years, or indefinitely.
Mr. Trump insisted in a tweet on Monday that the way things stand is “no different from my original statements.” But which senior administration official should the nation and the world believe — the boss or everyone below him?
In addition to a loss of American credibility, the collateral damage in all this mess includes the departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Brett McGurk, the State Department official managing the global coalition against the Islamic State. They resigned in protest over an order from the commander in chief that could now be null and void.
Or maybe it’s not. One administration official said he thought an order for a 120-day pullout remained in effect, perhaps a sign of an internal struggle over the policy.
Deferring the troop withdrawal — which was opposed by politicians across the spectrum — would be a necessary course correction. But the incident was also a missed opportunity. The United States is overdue for an honest debate about the future of its troops fighting terrorism in Syria and 79 other locations around the world, and Mr. Trump could have contributed constructively to that cause.
But drastic changes in military strategy are difficult to execute swiftly, especially when those decisions are made without input from a president’s national security team, Congress and allied forces, as Mr. Trump’s Syria swerve clearly was.
The United States shouldn’t stay in Syria forever. But it shouldn’t leave based on a tweet, either.
And this episode resurfaces profoundly troubling questions: Who speaks for the United States? Is the commander in chief being thwarted by his own national security team?
There is infighting in every administration. This goes beyond that.
Mr. Trump’s penchant for disinformation long ago left America’s friends scratching their heads over what to believe. Now they also must contend with a president who is likely to be overruled or redirected by his advisers.
That has had some benefit given Mr. Trump’s lack of experience in national security, his refusal to consider long-term strategic interests and the need for a certain degree of reliability in international affairs. Because of the efforts of Mr. Mattis and others, the United States remains in NATO despite Mr. Trump’s dismay with the alliance, for instance.
But the degree to which senior officials have had to reverse or slow roll precipitous, ill-considered, even dangerous decisions by the president also erodes civilian control of the military and sows uncertainty.
Such an approach will embolden adversaries, confuse friends and confound the servicemen and servicewomen who depend on their president for clear, principled leadership, especially when they are putting their lives at risk.
Mr. Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are crisscrossing the Middle East this week to reassure friendly governments that the administration is pursuing a coherent agenda, particularly in building a coalition against Iran. Is Mr. Trump also on board?
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article