Is Trump’s Bombast Good Diplomacy?

Threats and braggadocio yield diminishing returns.

Doug Bandow

Jan 2, 2025

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/is-trumps-bombast-good-diplomacy/

President Joe Biden may believe that he would have doddered to victory on November 5 had he stayed in the race, yet the Biden presidency is already disappearing into nihility. President-elect Donald Trump is already driving events from Ukraine to Canada, Iran to Panama, and beyond.

Unfortunately, his bombast, while a MAGA fan favorite, is undercutting American interests. Trump’s transition spokeswoman Anna Kelly opined, “When he officially takes office, foreign nations will think twice before ripping off our country, America will be respected again, and the whole world will be safer.” In fact, his rhetoric makes resistance more likely, and if his targets don’t give in, he will look like the proverbial paper tiger. U.S. policy would be better served by restraint, more like Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick”—only a big stick rarely, if ever, used.

Perhaps the most important global issue at the moment is the Ukraine war. That so much death and destruction is occurring at the edge of a continent that twice suffered cataclysmic combat involving America in the last century or so is horrifying. The Russo–Ukrainian war offers the serious possibility of escalation to great power conflict and even nuclear war.

The president-elect’s plan to end the war in a day appears to be to threaten both sides and insist that they accept his terms. That is a prescription for failure and, worse, greater entanglement in a conflict not America’s own. Ukraine matters less to Washington than to both Kiev and Moscow. What seems fair to the U.S. won’t be likely to satisfy either, let alone both, combatants.

Rather than trying to engineer a specific solution, Washington should decide what it is prepared to do and communicate that to both sides. First, the U.S. should indicate that it will not agree to Ukraine’s entrance to NATO. Not as a concession to Moscow. Rather, because it is not in the allies’ interest to induct a member that would bring war into NATO. Military allies are not the equivalent of Facebook Friends, the more the merrier, as U.S. politicians have treated them in recent decades. Americans have no reason to die defending Ukraine.

Second, Washington should indicate that the U.S. will approve no more use of American-supplied weapons against Russia proper. Of course, Kiev’s forces are entitled to take the war to Moscow, which invaded Ukraine, but not with American armaments. The quickest way to turn a proxy war into a full-scale contest is to enable a nation to wage war against another. Vladimir Putin has not retaliated because he believes Russia is winning. If that changes, his response is likely to change as well.

Third, America’s primary interest is ending the war and reengaging Russia, no longer pushing it toward China, North Korea, and Iran. Moscow’s new friends reflect current threats, not long-term interests. Indeed, the shift away from the West is largely a consequence of misguided allied policy. Putin is no democrat, but he originally was not hostile to the West. He explained why that changed in his famous speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. Not unreasonably he pointed to America: “Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished.” More civilians died in Afghanistan than have been killed in Ukraine. Washington would best serve its own interests by drawing back, not digging in deeper.

Then there is Trump’s modern variant of Manifest Destiny. Why would the U.S. want to absorb Canada? Our northern neighbor defeated U.S. attempts at conquest during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Canadians have since shown no interest in being absorbed by the behemoth next door. Indeed, adding Canada, with a population in excess of 40 million, to America would shift politics sharply leftward, benefiting the Democratic Party, not Trump’s MAGA legions. 

Moreover, while trolling the effete elitist prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is great sport, it won’t likely convince Canadians to give up their sovereignty and nationhood. Indeed, Trump’s machinations might help force Trudeau from office, allowing the Liberal Party to choose a more appealing leader—meaning almost anyone—for the next election. Trudeau’s critics are demanding that his government prepare to fight a trade war, not surrender to the U.S. They certainly aren’t clamoring for statehood.

Badgering Denmark, as well as an estimated 57,000 Greenlanders, to welcome Uncle Sam’s embrace, is working no better. Truth be told, why would the latter, who enjoy self-government far from their nominal overseers, want to be ruled by the Imperial City otherwise known as Washington, D.C.? And why should Americans want the territory? Propinquity already gives the U.S. influence over Greenland, as when Denmark stepped in to help finance three airports that China had planned to construct. More is not always better.

As for Panama, what’s the problem? Washington shouldn’t be the mouthpiece of commercial shippers that want a rate cut. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page insists that “Mr. Trump’s claim that Panama is gouging Americans is unfounded.” Of course, the U.S. has the hard power necessary to retake the canal zone. Nevertheless, America’s chief problem in Latin America always has been its readiness to browbeat its weaker southern neighbors. Diplomacy and bribery—er, “aid”—can deal with any concerns, such as Chinese investment. Uncle Sam’s reputation for ostentatious hypocrisy and sanctimony only grows when he bleats about democracy while threatening his neighbors.

Threatening war with Mexico is Trump’s worst idea. Unpleasant truth be told, the problem is not that Mexicans are willing to supply the U.S. with drugs. The problem is that Americans want to use Mexican drugs. Mexico is not responsible for America’s drug demand. America’s demand is responsible for Mexico’s drug cartels. Past U.S. wars on drugs in foreign nations have rarely achieved much.  The Mexican government and people are more likely to resist than accept U.S. intervention. Washington likely would find itself increasingly entangled in an expanding no-win insurgency. And invading Mexico would trigger active opposition internationally, uniting most of the world against the U.S. occupation. It would be far better to reward positive behavior.

Then there is the ever-tragic Middle East. To Trump’s credit, the former and future president criticized the Iraq war and said he wanted to get out of Afghanistan and Syria. However, he retreated when the Deep State resisted his policy. Biden had to bring Americans home from the former. The U.S. is still entangled in the latter, with Trump putting out statements urging Washington to stay out of Syria’s tragic denouement.

Worse, rather than stepping back and allowing the region to sort out its own destiny, Trump offered essentially untrammeled support to the two most aggressive Mideast powers, Saudi Arabia and Israel, whose wars have killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians. The former has spent billions on U.S. weapons to build its military. The latter is a nuclear-armed regional superpower. Both are well able to defend themselves. Alas, the result of Washington’s intervention is only more and worse conflict. 

For instance, backing the Saudi royals against the Ansar Allah movement, commonly called the Houthis, turned into a disaster. Unsurprisingly, people fighting for their beliefs and country tend to do better than pampered princes who murder their critics while expecting others to protect them. Why is the U.S. seeking to make the region, if not the world, safe for absolute monarchy? After years of losing, Riyadh gave up against Yemeni insurgents, who now have driven traffic from the Red Sea and even begun bombarding Israel in retaliation for its slaughter of Gaza civilians. American ships have been on station for more than a year, even though America’s share of the affected ocean-borne traffic is small. Yet the attacks continue. Washington faces pressure to escalate lest it admit that ragtag Arabian insurgents can best the world’s great superpower. Better to leave and allow the Europeans and others to defend their shippers’ needs.

A similarly unlimited U.S. commitment to Israel also guarantees unending conflict. With more Arabs than Jews between the Mediterranean and Jordan River, only some political accommodation with Palestinians will lead to a stable peace. Unfortunately, U.S. support no matter how brutal Jerusalem’s behavior has encouraged Israel to seek absolute victory, ensuring future rounds of violence. Which will inevitably again draw in the U.S., making Americans accomplices to more mass killing. As a result Israel has become an international pariah and Washington’s adversaries, most importantly China and Russia, posture as defenders of oppressed peoples.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” famously warned Lord Acton. So it is even with the United States. Washington’s continued commitment to primacy is making the world more, not less dangerous. A true believer in making America first would recognize that ultimately the U.S. has permanent interests rather than friends, focus on truly important causes, seek first to do no harm, eschew turning allies into dependents, accept the inevitable tragedies of a fallen world, and treat military action as a genuine last resort.

Finally, a MAGA warrior should realize that while bombast can serve a purpose, it isn’t normally the best way to pursue America’s ends. Diplomacy should always be the start. And in most cases it should also be the end, since most issues aren’t worth fighting over. 

To Trump’s credit, he has proved reluctant to use Washington’s abundant hard power. He also has been willing to ignore widespread criticism and pursue diplomacy, as in the case of North Korea. In his second term he should use threats sparingly, pursuing persuasion rather than compulsion. That’s the essence of the business deals that he so loves. It also should be the foundation of America’s approach to the rest of the world in the years ahead.