Brookings fellow – scheduled to speak in Sarasota this week – doesn’t think Trump’s instincts are wrong.
By Johannes Werner
Original Air Date: Jan. 3, 2024
Host: When should the U.S. government engage in warfare? Michael O’Hanlon says it usually happens too quickly and with too much optimism. Some listen to his cautious takes — in addition to being a member of the Defense Policy Board at the U.S. Department of Defense, he is an analyst at the Brookings Institution, the Washington-based think tank. He will be speaking at a Sarasota World Affairs Council event next Thursday, January 9.
Johannes Werner: There is a long history of the United States being cocky about entering into war. Analyst Mike O’Hanlon:
Mike O’Hanlon: I worry that we’ll get ourselves into scraps that we don’t really need to be in. We Americans are a very assertive people and we like to tell ourselves — and we learn in our grade school history books — that we’ve tried to stay out of other nations’ wars, going back to Washington’s farewell speech and everything else. So the whole idea of the United States as getting away from Europe and its problems and its oppressions. But, if you look at our history over 250 years, both at the grand strategy level, but also at levels of military policy and defense policy that I focus on in my new book, we see an assertiveness the whole time.
Mike O’Hanlon
It’s just, to me, sort of consistent throughout that Americans have a lot of confidence, a little bit of swagger, sometimes quite a bit of assertiveness, occasionally even aggressiveness, and it’s not all bad, because we’ve been a force generally for good in the world, but we should know this about ourselves, and we should know that, in fact, the American way is to get a little bit pushy in world affairs, and that’s it.
Because of the fact that war is so often much worse than expected once it begins, and of course we’ve seen this of late in Iraq for the United States and then in Ukraine for Russia and in Gaza for Israel, that you generally need to avoid falling into the temptation of thinking you’ve got a beautiful new theory of victory and new weapons and a martial spirit among your people that somehow gives you a path towards rapid victory. That’s usually not the case.
JW: Even though O’Hanlon has an axe to grind with President-elect Donald Trump about talking of taking Greenland or occupying the Panama Canal, he also has good words for his foreign policy.
MO: Trump defenders would probably say it’s just part of the package. It’s bluster. It’s negotiating tactics. It’s sometimes just simple entertainment, you know, sit back and enjoy the ride. But to me, these are scary comments. I think they’re probably unlikely to lead to any direct military action to make them happen. But the fact that we would even be having this conversation, is to me, mind boggling and perplexing and worrisome. So I don’t know how to interpret them.
I mean, with a lot of what Trump says, his bark is worse than his bite. And certainly if you look back at the first four years he was president, he threatened to do a lot of things, but was usually more restrained when it came to action. And one thing I like about Trump — and there aren’t that many, I have to say — but one thing I do like is his relative reluctance to use military force. He even brags about peace through strength as his defining philosophy, echoing Ronald Reagan. So I hope that this is just theater and maybe some kind of negotiating tactic, although I’m not really sure in regard to Greenland, what he has in mind, it seems to me sort of crazy.
JW: Hanlon also echoes some of Trump’s rhetoric on Ukraine.
MO: I don’t think that President Trump’s instincts are wrong. He has said he’d like to end the fighting fast. And therefore, the obvious conclusion you draw is that for Trump, ending the war fast matters more than helping Ukraine liberate the territory that Russia has stolen from it, starting in 2014, but especially in the all out war since 2022. And I think Trump is correct. That for the United States, it matters more to have a stable end to the fighting, as long as Ukraine remains sovereign, than it does to necessarily redraw the border in Eastern Europe exactly where we would prefer it along the pre-war lines.
And it’s abominable what Russia’s done. We have to avoid ever condoning it or saying anything favorable about Vladimir Putin, and on that point I think Donald Trump’s made some big mistakes. But I don’t think he’s wrong to want to end the war quickly as the preeminent goal for the United States
JW: While big-power rivalry with China is quickly becoming the biggest cost factor in U.S. military planning, O’Hanlon urges for caution.
MO: We have largely persuaded ourselves that we are good and they are bad. And that we’re the force for democracy and human rights and they’re the force for oppression and autocracy. And I certainly am on the U.S. side when it comes to determining who’s got a better system of government. But we have a lot of flaws in our own country and we have a lot of flaws in our own foreign policy. And so I think we should be resolute in standing up to the Chinese when they get assertive. But we should be hesitant to view our competition with them in black and white terms in zero sum, good versus evil terms, because that could lead us into a conflict unnecessarily and very dangerously.
JW: To find out more about his upcoming talk, go to sarasotawac.org.
Johannes Werner, reporting for WSLR News.
WSLR News aims to keep the local community informed with our 1/2 hour local news show, quarterly newspaper and social media feeds. The local news broadcast airs on Wednesdays and Fridays at 6pm.