“A military dispute should only be used as a last resort, as the proper way to resolve conflict is through discussion and debate, which is considered more human-like, while resorting to force is akin to the behavior of beasts; essentially, war should only be undertaken when negotiations fail and to achieve a just peace, with the vanquished treated fairly after conflict ends.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero, “On Duties”
It is worth repeating: Diplomacy should be the primary means to address disputes; only if it fails should we resort to a military solution. For the most part, this has not been US policy in the last 50 years.
The President-Elect
President-elect Trump has shown himself to be somewhat wary of getting into armed conflicts (but not selling arms). Most recently, he has written that he does not want the United States to be involved in Syria, even though we have troops there now; and it is unclear what the future holds with the yet-to-be-formed government.
Trump has always shown unquestioned faith in his decisions and relationships with foreign leaders, much more so than any faith in existing federal expertise. As he said in describing his views of government and politics, “I trust no one” — other than himself.
For example, during his first term, he bypassed or froze out all others in discussions with Vladimir Putin, had a “love affair” with Kim Jong Un, got along splendidly with Xi Jinping (inviting him now to his 2025 inauguration, reinforced by his key advisor Elon Musk, who has economic interests in China), and is fine with Viktor Orban of Hungary, among others.
Past Presidents’ Attitudes and Actions
Mistrust of the military and arms dealers has a history in the United States. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address, cautioned against the dangers of a powerful armaments industry and its implications for American democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
From a man who was a career officer and knew war firsthand, his caution about intertwining military objectives with national policy makes sense to this day.
35 years of Presidential Approaches and Attitudes
Since 1990, there has been a trend among American presidents to rely more on the military and intelligence community than on diplomacy and the State Department for foreign engagement. This has not been to exclude talks or nods to the United Nations and other international organizations, but the shift to military or quasi-military solutions over diplomatic efforts has become a norm, underlining a cycle of intervention policies that characterize US foreign relations for much of the last 35 years, but not all. (It is important to note that some of the brightest minds in US public service are in the military, but their background, training and experience orient how they approach international challenges.)
In 1990, US President George H.W. Bush led a coalition of NATO and Middle Eastern allies that liberated Kuwait from Iraqi attack and occupation. This was a relatively quick and decisive coalition military action and was considered a huge tactical success at the time; albeit far less attention was paid at the time to the long-term effects of potential disruptive political, ethnic, and religious divides.
In 1992, US President Bill Clinton led and was joined by NATO allies in intervening militarily in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was to address boiling ethnic conflicts in Europe. It was another largely successful multi-country military operation, underpinned with extensive before and after diplomatic effort.
The Early 2000s: The War on Terror
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attack in the United States resulted in a US-led military response in Afghanistan, with NATO invoking Article 5, its collective defense clause. In November, United Nations Resolution 1378 called for member states to send peacekeeping forces and a transitional administration. By and large, however, over the next two decades, US military and White House advisors shaped US policy and combat roles, with diplomats having less influence.
In 2003, President George W. Bush opted to topple Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein. The official justification for the invasion of Iraq was the claim (later proved false) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In hindsight, the decision to invade reflected a mistaken disposition to act militarily on the basis of questionable intelligence. A State Department led by a former diplomat rather than a General might have advocated for alternative strategies designed to negotiate and rebuild relations, had it been in the driver’s seat. What we know is that Iraq today is a tinderbox of political conflict and instability.
Obama Administration: A Shift in Language, but Not Tactics
President Barack Obama attempted to recalibrate the US approach to foreign engagements. During his tenure he sought to reprioritize diplomacy, for example in negotiating the Iran deal and the Paris Climate Accord. While Obama’s administration gave greater emphasis to diplomacy and multilateralism, the military and intelligence community were still major factors in determining policy and response formulation. As a case in point, Obama supported the successful overthrow of the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which in the aftermath has led to continuing instability. While Obama’s decision to do so probably contributed to his re-election in 2012, in an interview with Fox News, Obama was asked about his “worst mistake,” he answered: “Probably failing to plan for the day after.”
In 2011, a US raid into Pakistan led to the killing of the 9/11 terrorist organizer, Osama bin Laden. In this case, the military action was based on reliable CIA intelligence and the extraction capabilities of Navy SEALs, leaving no troops on the ground. It has been considered tactically successful but had serious consequences for US-Pakistani relations, a country with nuclear capability.
Related Articles: Trump’s Climate Change and Factory Farming Policies: What to Expect From His Win | How America Lost World Leadership | What Is Trump up to and Can It Be Prevented?
Trump in 2017-2020 and Biden’s Continued Reliance on Military Solutions
Before becoming President, Trump often spoke critically of “endless wars,” saying the Afghan war was “wasting our money” and “a total and complete disaster.” Once in office, however, his national security team, dominated by generals, convinced him to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan. In short, his stated foreign policy approach was skepticism about war, but his actions used the military to try to achieve objectives.
In 2021, President Joe Biden actually withdrew all US troops from Afghanistan. The chaos that followed led to many lives being lost and a governmental vacuum filled by an authoritarian regime, which greatly surprised its US supporters. Biden’s basic instinct has been to look more to the State Department and diplomacy to pursue efforts to contain, negotiate, or resolve fierce fighting and bloody conflicts — without US soldiers becoming directly engaged. Such is the case both with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza-Israel conflict. And the Biden Administration has provided, and continues to provide, massive amounts of US weaponry to Ukraine and to Israel.
Could Trump’s Second Term Be Different When It Comes to Foreign Affairs?
President-elect Trump has said he will bring to bear his extraordinary negotiating skills and personal relationships to end the Ukraine War and continuing robust support to Israel with weaponry and political cover. He has also said he wants this time to be different, presumably no direct US troop engaged in conflicts.
But what he says today does not mean tomorrow he will do as he has said. Will he give greater prominence to conventional diplomacy or disregard it? His Cabinet selections suggest they will not provide much in the way of contrary ideas because “DJT” knows best how to deal with resolving complex international relations, landscapes, and conflicts. Conventional diplomacy is likely to be disregarded altogether or if it offers only alternatives unattractive to DJT. Such self-assurance is simply much too risky in today’s multipolar, multi-crisis world, where having extensive relevant knowledge and contacts at many layers and places will define what is achievable, avoid where possible the initiation, continuation or escalation of military conflicts, and make the safety of all of us more likely. Let’s hope…
** **
Richard Cooper, JD, contributed to this article.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — In the Cover Photo: Donald Trump speaking with attendees at an Arizona for Trump rally at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Arizona, August 23, 2024. Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore.
