OPINION:
Most Americans, including many senior politicians, tend to use the terms national security and foreign policy interchangeably. They are not the same thing. They are certainly interrelated, and when done well they should rhyme. Whatever his perceived weaknesses, President Trump is one of the American politicians who seems to know the difference. It is good to do foreign policy well; it is essential to get national security right. Mr. Trump understands that prioritization, while many of his Democratic and Republican critics fail to grasp the essential difference.
Going into the 2016 election, the nation faced two potentially immediate national security threats, those being illegal immigration and the development of an ICBM-delivered nuclear capability threatening the American homeland by a regime in North Korea of dubious rationality. The Obama administration was patently unable to cope with either. Worse, it was confusing things by portraying climate change as an immediate existential threat to the nation.
In the foreign policy realm, President Obama’s administration was suffering from the death of a thousand ankle bites. Despite years of ineffectual pleas from the United States, most of our major NATO allies were not living up to their financial obligations to the alliance. This was happening as the Russians were aggressively bullying Ukraine and not so subtly threatening our Baltic NATO allies while aggressively assisting the barbaric Assad regime in Syria. ISIS had overrun much of Iraq, and China was bullying its way into dominance in the South China Sea while blatantly pursuing high-handed economic exploitation of international trade and globalization. The challenge at sea happened at a time when our Navy was being hobbled by political correctness and mismanagement in shipbuilding, maintenance and training.
None of these posed an existential threat to the United States, but as an aggregate, they made our nation appear ineffectual internationally in the foreign policy realm. The Obama administration’s sole foreign policy “success” was a toothless nuclear agreement with Iran that only benefitted Iran and global big business with no mitigating impact on Iran’s bad behavior in the region. It was a foreign policy of good intentions, wishful thinking and non-boat rocking toward both our enemies and our erstwhile allies.
Mr. Trump has not only rocked the foreign policy lifeboat, but he has threatened to capsize it if the passengers remained unruly. By and large, the passengers have gotten into line. Iran is on notice regarding its bad behavior as well as its long-term nuclear aspirations. NATO allies are actually starting to ante-up to their defense obligations. No one thinks ISIS is destroyed but its immediate threat to Iraq’s nascent democracy has been checked even though it remains an insurgent threat in both Syria and Iraq.
Mr. Trump’s approach to Russia and China remains pragmatic. Presidents Trump and Vladimir Putin have reached an agreement to disagree on some fundamental issues, but Russia is no longer beating the war drum in the Ukraine and things have quieted on the Baltic front. Regarding China, no nonsense is brooked in the South China Sea and Mr. Trump’s trade war with Beijing has shown real signs of reaching a negotiated peace acceptable to both sides. Venezuela and Afghanistan remain problematical, but both are issues that only their own people can resolve in the end.
The Obama administration’s foreign policy was built on good intentions toward adversaries and collegiality toward the allies and coalition partners except for Israel and Egypt. There was no fear in the hearts of recalcitrant friend or enemies. Successful great powers have always realized that collegial relationships are nice to have, but not essential. The bottom line needs to be a sense of fear of consequences among friends and adversaries alike. Mr. Trump has achieved that.
This brings us to national security. Mr. Trump understands that hordes of Central Americans crossing our borders unchecked is a very real challenge to the essence of what America is. Ironically, Mr. Putin — no friend of the West — has pointed out that uncontrolled immigration is a threat to the national fabric of states that allow it. Regarding North Korea, Mr. Trump continues addressing Pyongyang’s threats with a combination of economic pressure and a willingness to negotiate. ICBM and missile tests are on hold while talks are ongoing.
President Trump’s approach with a tough foreign policy of putting America first is the opposite of isolationism. In that, he puts me in mind of Winston Churchill. Like Churchill, Mr. Trump can be irascible and infuriating — and sometimes dead wrong — but he demands and gets results.
• Gary Anderson lectures at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.