Cato Institute: Book Review--"Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America's Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse" by Glaser et al

The three writers of this volume--John Glaser, Christopher Preble both of Cato, A. Trevor Thrall, Professor, George Mason University--were on hand to discuss their work at the Cato Institute, Washington, DC, October 21, 2019; Heather Hurlburt, New America, the Commentator. 

These authors see Trump's attempt at a consistent foreign policy as a reaction to a prevailing doctrine in the State Department with its dealings in international affairs that they identified as the Doctrine of Primacy.  According to it, the US military is given primacy right when the US State Department endeavors to offer solution to an international political problem occurring somewhere in the world.  Trump, while preferring his own doctrine not named in the discussion but appears to be that of the "great man" to "great man" means to resolve conflicts and disputes among nations and political movements such that these men and they alone can establish global rules and edicts through their unified pronouncements that will end international conflict.

We've had at least 30 years of Primacy Diplomacy; and the net result they report is worldwide dissatisfaction with war as an appropriate method to resolve international conflict, they report.  Despite offering his own doctrine, he nevertheless is willing to go along with the current thesis to some degree as long as other nations do so, indicating their support for it by their annual contributions to some military--whether to the US military or to their own particular country that has joined with the US in battle.  Trump's support of the Saudi solution to the Yemen civil war is justified with his comment, "The Saudis pay us for the weaponry we make for them."  To these authors, the doctrine that's been adopted by the US all these long years isn't working well; and they seem to endorse Trump's project to bring the US troops home as indicating his displeasure with the doctrine in vogue.

But to my mind, there are reasons for US military to be present in some advisory capacity, rather than in battle ready mode, around the world--e.g., in Afghanistan to encourage the Kabul government to continue to allow the education of women, and in Syria to support the Kurdish people to remain living there.  These force levels are indeed negligible but send a message of US humanitarian goodwill and moral determination to help do what we can to make the world a better place.   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ponderings on Trump's Diplomacy Style...

This discussion never really broached Trump's clear attempt at what I have called for present purposes, a "Great Man" to "Great Man" resolution of international conflicts.  For he seems to advocate through his attempts at diplomacy that if only individuals with enormous power or world prominence in politics (in most cases because of their leadership of countries with vast amounts of oil and gas reserves--governing over the countries of the United States, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC organization, Russia and its former satellite Ukraine, and Venezuela, presently under Russian protection) get together e.g., by phone, Twitter, or in-person meeting, whatever ails in the political realm can be quickly and satisfactorily handled to the world's great delight.  He would extend this "greatness" appellation also to the leaders of Israel and Turkey, apparently, and perhaps also to the Mexican President.