Trump and the Future of US Foreign Policy
Will the new president change the U.S.’ trajectory?
Summary
Given recent events in the United States, we thought it might be useful to summarize some of the forecasts we made last December and try to show how Donald Trump’s election fits in. We, of course, didn’t forecast Trump’s election. Politics and elections are too unstable to forecast. The failure of most polls to anticipate the outcome is an example. However, our contention is that broader geopolitical trends are forecastable, and this will place Trump’s election in a geopolitical context drawn from our forecasts. Overall, this report concludes that Trump’s election does not disrupt our forecasts about the U.S.’ place in the world in the next 15 years, and even in some cases confirms that they are on track.
- We have forecast that the U.S. is moving towards a balance of power strategy in the world where it eschews direct intervention in favor of reliance on allies and regional power structures.
- This forecast has particular relevance for U.S. relations with the Middle East, Russia and China.
- Trump, like all incoming U.S. presidents, has grand plans, but what he can achieve is limited by constraints outside of his control.
Introduction
Donald Trump will be an unprecedented president in many respects. He has never served in public office, nor has he served in the U.S. military. He will arrive at the White House in January with less experience than any previous U.S. president in history. He also has developed a reputation as a mercurial man who says what he thinks and takes controversial stands on issues, even through social media. Despite all this, we believe Trump’s policies will not be defined by his previous statements or his stated policies, but rather by circumstances and events outside of his control, just like all of his predecessors.
We have numerous forecasts pertaining to U.S. foreign policy up to 2040, but many fall under the rubric of one key development that already is playing out. The era of the United States intervening in large, land-based conflicts in Eurasia is over. The U.S. will utilize a balance of power strategy to manage a Eurasian landmass that will become increasingly chaotic over the coming decades. This especially will be true in three key strategic areas: the Middle East, Russia and China.
The Middle East
Our forecast states: “In the Middle East, there are four major powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. … They can cooperate in defeating an enemy like Islamic State, or create a system of competition and conflict with each other. ... The U.S.-jihadist wars caused the United States to understand the price of [a policy of intervention] in an environment that was not critical to its own security. The turn to a regional balance of power approach [among these four countries] represents what American foreign policy will look like in the next 25 years.”
After 15 years of war in the Middle East, the U.S. has learned that defeating an enemy in battle is not the same as eliminating a problem. The U.S. showed it could beat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, but it also showed it couldn’t prevent the Taliban’s return or the rise of something worse than Saddam. Sustained occupation would require the reinstitution of conscription in the United States, which the public will not support.
Trump has made a point of appearing tough on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Islamic State. But Trump hasn’t suggested he would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers into the Syrian desert to take Raqqa back from IS. On the contrary, Trump is looking to destroy IS with minimal investment and then to pull the U.S. back so he can focus on domestic issues. Even if Trump wanted to launch a full-scale U.S. military intervention against IS, the U.S. military doesn’t have the troops and operational depth necessary to become involved in a new conflict. If the U.S. isn’t able to provide troops, defeating IS would require the participation of local fighters.
Donald Trump will be an unprecedented president in many respects. He has never served in public office, nor has he served in the U.S. military. He will arrive at the White House in January with less experience than any previous U.S. president in history. He also has developed a reputation as a mercurial man who says what he thinks and takes controversial stands on issues, even through social media. Despite all this, we believe Trump’s policies will not be defined by his previous statements or his stated policies, but rather by circumstances and events outside of his control, just like all of his predecessors.
We have numerous forecasts pertaining to U.S. foreign policy up to 2040, but many fall under the rubric of one key development that already is playing out. The era of the United States intervening in large, land-based conflicts in Eurasia is over. The U.S. will utilize a balance of power strategy to manage a Eurasian landmass that will become increasingly chaotic over the coming decades. This especially will be true in three key strategic areas: the Middle East, Russia and China.
The Middle East
Our forecast states: “In the Middle East, there are four major powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. … They can cooperate in defeating an enemy like Islamic State, or create a system of competition and conflict with each other. ... The U.S.-jihadist wars caused the United States to understand the price of [a policy of intervention] in an environment that was not critical to its own security. The turn to a regional balance of power approach [among these four countries] represents what American foreign policy will look like in the next 25 years.”
After 15 years of war in the Middle East, the U.S. has learned that defeating an enemy in battle is not the same as eliminating a problem. The U.S. showed it could beat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, but it also showed it couldn’t prevent the Taliban’s return or the rise of something worse than Saddam. Sustained occupation would require the reinstitution of conscription in the United States, which the public will not support.
Trump has made a point of appearing tough on foreign policy, particularly regarding the Islamic State. But Trump hasn’t suggested he would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers into the Syrian desert to take Raqqa back from IS. On the contrary, Trump is looking to destroy IS with minimal investment and then to pull the U.S. back so he can focus on domestic issues. Even if Trump wanted to launch a full-scale U.S. military intervention against IS, the U.S. military doesn’t have the troops and operational depth necessary to become involved in a new conflict. If the U.S. isn’t able to provide troops, defeating IS would require the participation of local fighters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario