In Praise of Trump's Gut

In the last few weeks President Trump has taken steps to fulfill one of his campaign promises, to extricate America from "endless" wars. He has heralded the major progress his special envoy to Afghanistan has made in talks with the Taliban to pave the way for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan. The reaction from observers both within and outside the administration made it clear that he did not consult the military or foreign policy professionals but, apparently, has relied on his gut instincts.

Since I think the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable and I do not think our departure will mean the return of the horrors of the Taliban regime of 20 years ago, I think this is a good decision. I also think it may represent the first small step away from the militarized policy that has marked America's relationship with both the Middle East and Africa since 2001.

The immediate response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 was, as Shakespeare would have it, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" The rhetoric from President Bush and his administration and Congress's Joint resolution of September 14 authoring the use of the military force against those responsible for the attacks and any "associated forces" has led to almost two decades of open-ended "war on terror"* and given unchallenged primacy to the national security establishment's++ definition of American interests in the Middle East and Africa.

*President Obama did try to retire the phase and was blasted by hawkish critics. But a major factor in his administration's faltering and tepid response to the emerging tragedy of civil war in Syria was the desire to find groups to support whose rhetoric and ideology had no trace of political Islam, because so many national security "experts" equate every expression of political Islam with "terrorism."

++ the senior military officers, civilian scholars and analysts with a particular interest in military affairs who can be found at the upper levels of the Pentagon and often move between universities or research institutions and governmental positions. Their shared world view emphasizes detecting and countering threats to the U.S.

A major consequence of the preeminence of the emphasis on security is that the U.S. Central Command has become far more powerful in shaping policy toward countries in the Middle East than the diplomats and officials in the State Department. President Obama created the Africa Command to coordinate the U.S. military involvement in Africa and fight terrorism in North Africa, the Sahara, and countries like Kenya and Nigeria. Not only has that meant the Defense Department's definition of U.S. interests has overshadowed an emphasis economic, political and social development goals in those countries but it has also colored America's approach to the entire continent. This has given China even more opportunities for economic involvement in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are two fundamental problems with the ascendance of the national security perspective over the other dimensions of international relations. The first is an institutional bias toward seeing threats. Any profession trains its practitioners to be very sensitive to specific problems. For example, police officers are trained to look for potential crime, medical professionals are trained to look for disease, and Political Scientists tend to see everything as political. National security experts consider the most important aspect of every other country in the world is whether they are a direct threat to the United States, an ally against threatening states or largely irrelevant.

If you think Iran is a major threat to the United States and Saudi Arabia is, after Israel, the most important counter to Iran in the Middle East, then human rights, treatment of women or foreign workers, even the execution of a journalist are of secondary importance.

The second fundamental problem with the national security emphasis is that it emphasizes a restricted set of tools for dealing with the world. The military and civilian defense intellectuals dress the primacy of hard power over soft power. "Hard power" refers to resources that can be used for coercion (do it my way or you'll be sorry) or deterrence (if you do that you'll be sorry) while "soft power" refers to resources, particularly intangible resources, like prestige or admiration for a country's culture or technology, that can be used to persuade. From a national security perspective, sophisticated jet fighters really matter; a commitment to human rights and democracy is somewhat beside the point.

I do not think that one's gut is a reliable guide to coping with complex problems and it is usually oblivious to the devils lurking in the details. If my stomach hurts I prefer the physician who asks about symptoms and runs some tests before making a diagnosis to the non-physician who wanders by and says his gut tells him I've got an ulcer. If it's gut versus judgment based on expertise, I'll go with informed judgment.

But, just as even a blind hog can find an acorn some of the time, the gut can be right. And in the case of Afghanistan, I think Trump's gut trumps expertise.