In Favor of John Bolton

Incoming National Security Advisor John Bolton once wrote a book titled Surrender Is Not An Option. The hawkish former UN Ambassador is not one to spare quarter.
President Trump’s newest appointee comes on the heels of Three Star General H.R. McMaster’s resignation from his post.

McMaster and the President had an extremely tense relationship, as McMaster attempted to moderate the President’s views on the Iran nuclear deal, North Korea, and push him harder against the Russians.

By some accounts, McMaster, while brilliant, dutiful, and meticulous in his policy calculations, was simply too boring to keep the President’s attention for long periods. They could not mesh, and therefore McMaster had to go.

There is no doubt that President Trump has foreign policy instincts that have negatively impacted the world’s view of America much more than previous presidents. His decorum is lacking, and American credibility comes in question for allies.

He has slashed the State Department budget, and regularly insults Kim Jong Un on Twitter, while uselessly talking in circles around his relationship with the Russians. With far too many divergent voices on foreign policy in this administration—the corrupt Michael Flynn, the methodical James Mattis, the inane Steve Bannon, and the utterly powerless Rex Tillerson—there has been no coherent vision nor philosophy for the President’s foreign policy.

Sometimes he is a pragmatist, launching missiles into Syria after Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. On occasion, the president is subtle, and arms Ukrainians against Russian aggression. But, Trump has been sophomoric and even reckless when it comes to his private and public comments to foreign leaders. We can’t forget when he accepted a call from the Taiwanese and enraged the Chinese or when he congratulated Putin on his “election” victory.

Yet, with all of this said, his decision to appoint both John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be his newest foreign policy gurus is far from foolish of him.

First, Bolton is no uneducated populist. A Yale Law graduate, he served in various capacities during the Bush administration, and was one of the chief architects of regime-change in Iraq. The incoming National Security Advisor also knows his way around a bureaucracy, and is familiar with how to get his ideas heard. An added point of interest is Bolton’s background as a Fox News commentator.

While a media background could prove dubious for many moderates and conservatives, what is important is that he is an engaging speaker: both a pundit and a foreign policy mind. Bolton’s ability to engage separates him from McMaster, who was described as ‘boring’ within the White House, and as a result, could not persuade the President away from some of his more dangerous foreign policy instincts.

The gusto in Bolton’s advocacy has the potential to engage the President far better than McMaster was suited to do, and his nuanced ideas could moderate the President’s aggressive attitude.

Of course, this is not to say Bolton is any dove. He, unlike the President, maintains that the Iraq War was a necessary one, and has written frequently on the use of preemptive airstrikes on our enemies. One should expect Bolton to take the hardest line against Russian and North Korean aggression that America has seen since the Cold War.

This is a refreshing contrast from stagnant and unworkable diplomatic frameworks of recent years, where the United States has hidden behind sanctions and refused to hold Russia accountable for its aggression and human rights abuse, as well as North Korea’s nuclear aspirations.

In a world where the United States has unrivaled military might, deterrence via threat is the strongest weapon, and Bolton recognizes that.

Articles from the New York Times such as “Yes, John Bolton is Really That Dangerous” mischaracterize the governing tenets of his neoconservative background. Granted, Bolton regularly calls for or threatens military use, especially in the fields of regime change and backing off adversarial nations. He is not wrong to do so, however.

The goal of such threats is to create the specter of existential threat or imminent violence to enemies abroad so that violence need not actually occur. The United States has the military clout to remain credible in tense situations with foreign powers, and a re-commitment to unilateralism will reactivate the United States as an active player in many world affairs, instead of attempting to hold failing allies to a similar standard.

In a world where the United States has unrivaled military might, deterrence via threat is the strongest weapon, and Bolton recognizes that.

Of course, some of Bolton’s views are problematic. A blatant disregard for international law indicates a refusal to cooperate with foreign nations when transgressions occur, and an overemphasis on regime change could lead to future conflicts that would be highly unpopular with the American public.

If Iraq was branded as simply a war predicated on regime change, the public would not have supported it the way it did at the onset. The President, for both the good of the nation and for political expediency, cannot afford to get embroiled in useless or unpopular conflict.

Bolton believes that the function of the National Security Council is “to provide the President with the best options to protect and advance our national interests,” according to POLITICO. This does not necessarily mean that Bolton’s opinion will win out every time.

Instead, using his ability to engage the President prima facie, he will be able to present the Commander-in-Chief with an arsenal of creditable foreign policy options that align with the new vision of the White House, which will ultimately moderate many of Bolton’s hawkish inclinations as well.

Even better, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shares many of the same ideas about foreign enemies and conflict as Bolton. Instead of Tillerson, McMaster, and Mattis working in disjoint, there will be far more collaboration and cooperation between the different foreign policy gurus in the Trump administration.

At the very least, a cohesive vision for foreign relations can now take shape. The best foreign policy Presidents of the 20th century (Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush) were so extremely effective because they were able to be pragmatists within philosophies on international relations. Pompeo and Bolton will a new provide framework that addresses modern concerns with aplomb.

The reality is that in the wake of the Russian chemical attack on the UK, cybersecurity issues, and Putin’s consolidation of power in the Russian government, Americans should be concerned about the regime. Democrats have been leading the charge on this since the President’s election, but even the left can appreciate Bolton’s rock-solid condemnation of Russia. The Iran deal will be up for a vote in coming months, and will more likely than not be de-certified.

This leaves room for discretion and creativity for Bolton and company to push Iran closer to the brink, preferably with moderating war-like instincts with the help of Saudi prince Mohammad Bin Salman and Israel. And of course, North Korea remains a problem that continues to evade most sanctions in its insistence to become a nuclear power.

Changes in foreign policy are long overdue. He knows the issues, he is no buffoon, and he has a plan—it is high time to give John Bolton a chance.