WHAT goes on in the mind of Donald Trump? Where is he at? It’s a question reverberating around the governments of the world this week. President Trump’s missile strike on Syria came only weeks after he’d said President Assad was the best hope of defeating Islamic State, and that America had no interest any longer in removing him. Now suddenly the talk is again of regime change in the Middle East. American foreign policy has undergone a handbrake turn.
So much for the belief, among many of Mr Trump’s alt-right supporters and some on the US political left that, unlike Hillary Clinton, he was an America First isolationist who would not engage in foreign military adventures. Whoever thought that hasn’t been listening. It was naïve to believe that this bellicose confrontationalist, whose first act was to massively boost military spending, wasn’t going to use the forces at his disposal. Mr Trump is a gunslinger. He shoots from the hip. The President didn’t bother to consult Congress about launching an attack on a sovereign state which poses no threat to the US. Nor did he seek to win the support of the United Nations as his George W Bush did before Iraq. Yet, this is the first direct military intervention by America in Syria.
Vladimir Putin has also been blind-sided by Trump. I don’t know if the Russian President connived in Mr Trump’s election by spreading disinformation about Hillary Clinton. I don’t know if the Russian FSB has “kompromat” intelligence on Mr Trump involving bizarre sexual practices in a Moscow hotel. No one really does. But what we do know is that Mr Putin is an authoritarian, like Mr Trump, and an opportunist. He thought he could do business with a president who is not unlike the Russian oligarchs that put Mr Putin in power. Well, now he knows. By attacking Russia’s proxy in Syria, and risking killing Russian military personnel in the process, Mr Trump has at a stroke dispelled the claims that he is in Mr Putin’s pocket. The press in America is too fond of conspiracy theories to see the truth about Mr Trump, which is that he is a street-corner bully rather than a devious statesman.
He lacks any kind coherent philosophy apart from the crude business ethics expounded in The Art of the Deal. He isn’t in the business of forming strategic alliances. There’s little doubt that his campaign team had frequent contacts with Russian businessmen and diplomats, but it was about material gain rather than geo-politics; the main chance rather than the great game.
The UK Government and large sections of the press have celebrated Donald Trump’s resolve in launching a reprisal against President Assad’s alleged chemical assault on rebels in Khan Sheikhun. There was much talk of his “moral clarity” as opposed to the vacillation of the Obama administration. “Mr Trump’s actions speak louder than his tweets”, opined the Sunday Times, suggesting he’s a man of action who should be judged on his instinctive grasp of the “right thing to do”.
But this is as ill-advised as thinking that he was either a foreign policy dove or a supporter of detente with Russia. Mr Trump is capable of having several contradictory policies before breakfast, broadcast to the world through social media. It is disturbingly possible that Mr Trump’s main purpose was to show visiting Chinese President Xi how tough he is. The missile attack on Sharyat airfield in Syria took place as the pair were sitting down for dinner at Mar a Lago.
It is remarkable how an act of war can divert attention from problems of domestic policy. The failure to replace Obamacare, the immigrant ban, farce of the “beautiful wall” is suddenly in the background. War simplifies the messy business of politics and focuses the nations attention on an agenda set by the president. War and Mr Trump were made for each other. This is surely only the beginning.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel