Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military

"Its time we have to be a little tough, folks.
Were being taken advantage of by every nation in the world virtually.
Its not going to happen anymore."
Donald Trump, 02 February 2017

"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with..."
Donald Trump, 06 December 2016

"... a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing."
Neville Chamberlain, September 27, 1938

"January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.... For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.... "From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
"From this moment on, it's going to be America First....
"Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
"We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones -- and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.
"

In an interview with Playboy in 1990, Trump said "We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it werent for us. Our allies are making billions screwing us.... Japan gets almost seventy percent of its oil from the Persian Gulf, relies on ships led back home by our destroyers, battleships, helicopters, frog men. Then the Japanese sail home, where they give the oil to fuel their factories so that they can knock the hell out of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. Their openly screwing us is a disgrace. Why arent they paying us?

"I like George Bush very much and support him and always will. But I disagree with him when he talks of a kinder, gentler America. I think if this country gets any kinder or gentler, its literally going to cease to exist. I think if we had people from the business communitythe Carl Icahns, the Ross Perotsnegotiating some of our foreign policy, wed have respect around the world.

"[President Trump] ... would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldnt trust anyone. He wouldnt trust the Russians; he wouldnt trust our allies; hed have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that were defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. Were being laughed at around the world, defending Japan "

Trump Doctrine

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump outlined a clear "America first" foreign policy in a speech in April 2016, challenging the foundations upon which US foreign policy was built after World War II, while offering an amazingly isolationist alternative that elicited a powerful response from the US public. Trump vowed that if he were elected president, US allies in Europe and Asia would have to fend for themselves if they did not pay more for the US defense umbrella. In place of confrontation with Russia and China he said he wanted to cut deals with them, calculating that they are no threat to the US.

Roman Schweizer, an analyst with Cowen and Co. said in a note to investors 09 November 2016 [ commentary on political, economic or market conditions and is not intended as a research report ]: "The Trump victory, combined with the impressive GOP retention of Congress, means our low-probability, high-impact scenario for defense spending over the next four years becomes the base case. We expect defense spending will go up significantly, at least double the projected 2.5% growth rate in the now-superfluous BCA."

Contrary to a common criticism, President-elect Donald Trump has held strikingly consistent positions on foreign policy since he emerged as a politically ambitious real estate tycoon in the 1980s. In 1987, Trump, then 41, took out full-page advertisements in national newspapers in which he criticized America's defense policy and said the US "should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." The ad bore a message "remarkably similar to what he's saying today," said Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research group.

Wright's research identified three core beliefs that he said Trump has consistently held for the better part of the last three decades and is unlikely to change much when he enters the White House. First, Trump is highly critical of America's international alliances and wants to abandon them. Second, Trump is opposed to trade agreements with other countries and "wants to use tariffs and punitive measures to remake the international economic order." And finally, Trump has a "soft spot" for authoritarian regimes, particularly Russia. "While there were many issues he has no views on and many issues he takes multiple views on, there are a few in which he's been completely consistent over time dating back three decades," Wright said. How Trump came to embrace these views remains something of a puzzle.

Taken together, these beliefs came to define Trump's isolationist foreign policy doctrine. Well into the final days of the campaign, Trump seized every opportunity, often unprompted, to drive home his three favorite foreign policy themes. He hammered NATO members as free riders; he accused China of "ripping this country" and vowed to cut more favorable trade deals; and he praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader with whom he could do business.

Donald Trump told crowds a story in February 2016 about US Gen. John Pershing executing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs blood. He said that during the Moro rebellion in the Philippines (1899-1913, and Pershing served as governor of the Moro Province between 1909 and 1913), Pershing caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and dipped 50 bullets in pigs blood. You heard about that? He took 50 bullets and dipped them in pigs blood. And he has his men load up their rifles and he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened. Its a gruesome story, and it is also not true.

From NATO and America's security alliances with Japan and South Korea to the World Trade Organization and the Paris climate agreement, a host of partnerships and accords underpinning the postwar international order are at risk of unraveling. "Security alliances are based on some degree of trust and some degree of guarantees and predictability," Michael Barnett, a professor of political science at George Washington University, said. If allies lose confidence in America's commitment to their security, "you're going to see a whole bunch of our allies begin to reconsider their alliance relationships."

Trump portrayed Japan, a long-time treaty ally of the United States, as a free-rider on security. Trump says he feels the United States is getting a raw deal from the framework of international alliances forged after World War II, including the Geneva Conventions, which he says make US troops "afraid" to fight.

He suggested that Tokyo might need nuclear weapons to ease US financial commitment to its defense anathema to the only country ever attacked by atomic bombs. Trump said it might be better if countries like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia had their own nuclear weapons so they would not have to rely on the US for protection.

Trumps comments belittling NATO and others about the US paying too much for Japan's and South Koreas security were not just casual remarks, but reflected passionate views he has held for decades. He has a big problem with Americas alliances in Asia and Europe and in the Middle East. And hes looking to develop closer ties to authoritarian regimes like China and Putin's Russia. So that would amount to a revolution in US foreign policy since 1941.

This central pillar of current US foreign policy is challenged. Whereas US foreign policy has treated US allies as united in an effort to defensd and spread "Western values", Trump sees the US's relationship with its allies as purely transactional: the US will help them if they help themselves, with no sense of this being part of some ideological common cause.

In May 2015 Charles and David Koch, the most significant financial backers of Republican politicians and conservative institutions in America, hosted a conference on US foreign policy. The pair had previously steered clear of foreign policy. The brothers, who hail from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, had concentrated their efforts on domestic policy.Attendees included University of Chicago Prof. John Mearsheimer, Harvard Prof. Steve Walt, ormer US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Freeman, Prof. Andrew Bacevich from Boston University and Prof. Michael Desch from Notre Dame. The conference indicated that the Koch brothers may be interested in rebuilding the American First foreign policy coalition that Charles Lindbergh led during the 1930s.

Trump deepened his criticism 10 August 2016 of the current US administration, saying of Islamic State militants, "in many respects, you know, they honor President Obama." The US-led invasion of Iraq is seen by some as a destabilizing war that contributed to the current crisis in Syria. Some Republicans had criticized Obama and Hillary Clinton for not being aggressive enough in attacking the Islamic State group as it was seizing territory in Iraq and Syria two years ago. But no top Republican had gone so far as to accuse Obama of founding the group.

Donald Trump proposed a major expansion of the US military 07 September 2016, while at the same time suggesting that he would deploy those forces less frequently than his predecessors. Citing figures prepared by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Trump called for a Navy with 350 ships and submarines, a Marine Corps with 36 battalions, and an Air Force with more fighter aircraft. He also called for a restoration of a 540,000-strong active duty US Army. Trump advocated a state of the art missile defense system and called for adding anti-ballistic missile technology to the Navys aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

Donald Trump repeated throughout his presidential campaign that he opposed the Iraq war before the March 19, 2003 invasion, often taking credit for his judgement and vision claiming he knew it would destabilize the Middle East. But there is no evidence that anyone could find that he spoke against the war before it started. Trump indicated his support for war in a radio interview with shock jock Howard Stern on 11 September 2002 a little more than six months before the war started. Stern asked Trump directly if he supported going to war with Iraq, and Trump responded, Yeah, I guess so.

Stephen Walt, the prominent critic of US military interventions, who wrote for Foreign Policys website that Trump was just about the worst salesman for an alternative foreign policy that one could possible imagine.

It was called the Earths most watched election since World War II, one that will transform American policy and Americas position in the world. Analysts said the New York billionaires victory amounted to a seismic shift at a time when Washingtons relations with Russia are difficult, conflicts in Syria and Ukraine are still raging, the war on Islamic State militants is ongoing, Chinas behavior is growing increasingly defiant and nationalistic, and hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees are on the move.

What they see now is one candidate who seems to stand for a completely different view of Americas role in the world, said Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. I mean completely different, who repudiates rather specifically the alliance framework, the NATO framework in particular, who has repudiated Americas commitment to the liberal trade system that America created, the sort of open globalization America promoted, that seems to be in some ways more sympathetic to Americas historic enemies, like Russia, than it is to Europe.

The president-elect seemed to have embraced impulsiveness as a strategy. The strategy can't have come as much of a surprise Trump himself has been boasting about it for months, including during his first major foreign policy address in April 2016. "We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We're sending troops? We tell them. We're sending something else? We have a news conference," said Trump. He promised that under his administration, reliable patterns would end. "We have to be unpredictable," Trump said, waving his index finger in the air to make the point. "And we have to be unpredictable starting now."

On the eve of the final outcome of the US elections, when Hillary Clinton seemed to be winning, Russian media reproted that Russian military command reviewed the readiness of the national nuclear bunkers, something not done for decades.

Trump advanced a narrow understanding of national benefit that mattered more than global leadership, global order or solidarity with allies. Trump rejected the traditional bi-partisan goals of strengthening the global leadership of the US and maintaining a US-centered world order. He refuted the core idea that dominated American thought over the past 70 years whereby American security, prosperity and power were inseparable from global leadership and the need to shape the whole world according to American values and vision.

Global trade is based on regulations layered on since the end of the World War II. It would be difficult to change some of the terms without setting off a domino effect of unintended consequences. Quitting the already moribund Trans-Pacific Partnership may be the easiest part of his pledge to remake global trade relationships and protect jobs. Supporters of multinational deals say they make it easier to raise labor and other standards, and that larger trading areas can attract reluctant countries to enter.

Trump made it clear in the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on 25 January 2017 that he preferred negotiating trade deals with one country at a time. Some conservatives prefer bilateral pacts out of concern that multilateral deals can reduce the sovereignty of individual states. Trump's aides have also suggested they see a negotiating advantage in bringing maximum American leverage to bear on smaller partners one at a time. NAFTA could devolve into a pair of bilateral deals, one with Mexico and another with Canada. Trump was prepared to sacrifice US leadership in setting international rules and dominating global institutions, in order to make the US stronger internally.

The world's largest economy was walking away from a rule-based global trading system, a key component of the world economic order established in the post-war period. Multilateral trading mechanisms such as the World Trade Organization were built to level the playing field, increase trade for every participant, and manage trade disputes among all countries, whether big or small, before the same set of rights and obligations. The US was leaning toward unilateralism in trade and intended to adopt a more mercantilist and protectionist foreign policy. Bilateral FTAs could become the main foreign economic policy framework for the US outside the WTO.

Trump repudiated more than 75 years of a world economic order that took shape in the 1940s in Bretton Woods and Havana. But this order will remain in place, and so will the propensity for setting up mega-regional free-trade areas. China's Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is still in the making in East Asia (and now that the US has withdrawn from the TPP it can be created even faster).

Breitbart News reported 26 January 2017 that the administration of Donald Trump was preparing executive orders to minimize the role the US played in the UN and other international bodies, including organizations supporting the Palestinians or in which the Palestinian Authority has official representatives. One criteria is giving the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian Liberation Organization full membership, or any organization that is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism or is blamed for the persecution of marginalized groups or any other systematic violation of human rights. The order called for a reduction of at least 40 percent in funding toward such organizations.

A second executive order, Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties, calls for reviewing existing and pending treaties between the US and more than one other nation. The order asked for recommendations on which negotiations or treaties the US should abandon. Both orders called for reviewing funding that could go toward the International Criminal Court, even though the US does not currently provide any funding to that body.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list