https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/opinions/trump-bolton-afghanistan-security-concerns-vinograd/index.html
Image from Business Insider's Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Vinograd's depiction and analysis of President Trump's action are generally consistent with his administration's track record; chaos and arrogance. John Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, has actually been left out of important military and strategy meetings for Middle Eastern policy because he disagrees with the boss man. Bolton has shown that he prefers a military solution to a political one, while Trump's foreign policy outlook is unclear and changes with the amount of time he plays golf with oil executives. Coupled with Trump's lack of experience in the military, ignoring what had become a key senior councillor to the President in earlier administrations means erratic military policy from the White House. Trump is clearly violating political norms and could create a Trump-centric echo chamber in Washington.
Prompts:
- How could ignoring Bolton be a good idea?
- What is to come of Trump's behavior and collaboration with his staff?
3 comments:
Military solutions tend to cause casualties. Death and destruction within make it difficult to justify a mission as "protecting the people." So, in that sense, maybe it's good to ignore Bolton, especially as weapons get "better" and "sitting and talking" starts to lose favor. At the same time, locking an advisor out of a meeting sends a message that the solution to disagreement is ignoring the opposition. The whole point of having advisors is to get differences of opinion and sift through them. If a president only listens to the people they want to hear from, they'll have a limited perspective, and will consequently be limited in their ability to make important decisions. Part of being an adult is being open to conversation, even if it doesn't serve your own agenda, because shutting people out unfortunately does not erase them from existence.
To answer Albert's second question, Trump has broken the political norm of presidents listening to their national security advisors, and according to the CNN article, this could lead to other advisors keeping to themselves in fear of being sidelined by the President. This seems like a speculative piece of analysis to me, or at least I hope it is, because one should think that executive-level advisors are hired because they're willing to deliver opinions that may be hard to hear; whether or not the President will listen shouldn't be enough to deter them. Another possible consequence is that Trump ignoring Bolton could set a precedent for foreign countries to negotiate directly with the President, rather than going through established processes. This could be seen as an expansion of the President's power, which makes me wonder if the checks and balances system created by the Constitution is still viable in modern society, or if it's as effective as it should be.
Like Natalie said, I do believe that avoiding a military-driven course of action was a good decision in the long run, however the means by which this decision was made sets a dangerous precedent. By not taking into account the opinions of advisors, Trump is tipping the balance of power and building up more and more power in the presidential office, undermining the baseline of limited powers in each branch set by the Constitution. Shutting out advisors effectively blinds the president from courses of action that may be more viable and beneficial for the country as a whole, and while the president may have the final say, his decision has huge implications for the entire nation and should involve executive advisors. After all, presidents are not perfect; there’s a reason the Framers set up a government that limits power.
Post a Comment