As of this week, John Bolton is no longer the National Security Advisor for President Donald Trump. While much of the Left focuses on whether he was fired or resigned and how this is an indication of failure, his departure generates a number of questions and points to consider.
First, Bolton’s departure probably will not have profound implications for America’s foreign policy or its defense policy, notably because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo maintains an understanding of international relations similar to Bolton. Bolton, in the post-9/11 landscape, provided a critically needed perspective on friends, allies, opponents, and enemies of the United States. He always sided with the United States in an absolutist fashion: a country that treated America as a friend was a friend; and a country or organization that treated America as an enemy was an enemy.
That included the Taliban. There was never any doubt in the mind of President George W. Bush that the Taliban, which harbored and supported the terrorist network Al-Qaeda, was the enemy. Bolton shared that utterly clear view and was right to resist the idea that emerged in recent weeks of meeting with the Taliban.
Several years ago, before the presidency, Trump excoriated the Obama administration for considering peace talks with the Taliban. Trump was right to condemn the possibility. And he must remember that nothing has changed. The Taliban remain America’s enemies, and have to be defeated militarily. They had the chance to give up Al-Qaeda in the days following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They refused, were toppled from power, and remain at war with America.
Second, there will be serious concerns in some areas. There are some who might make comparisons between President Ronald Reagan’s anti-nuclear weapon summits with the Soviet Union, and the proposed talks with the Taliban at Camp David. Reagan was, after all, able to move the world closer to peace by leading the way to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons between the United States and the Soviets, bringing the Soviet Union one more step closer to their defeat.
But this is not 1987. This is not Reykjavik, Washington, or Moscow. The Taliban are not the Soviets. We are not dealing with concern about the threat of a global nuclear holocaust genuinely shared by a Ronald Reagan and a Mikhail Gorbachev. We are dealing with an insurgent group that would see America razed and destroyed no matter the cost. It isn’t the Communist goal of global domination and political revolution, but radical religious implementation through subjugation or obliteration. The Soviets dealt diplomatically in violent power. The Taliban deal in death. There is no talking with those enemies.
Third, it is important to also remember that Trump and Bolton did share a number of views despite the differences being prized by the Left’s narrative about Bolton’s departure. These similarities included unwavering love and support for Israel; and an understandable reserve about transnational groups and multinational organizations, especially where the United States was dealt with unkindly and unfairly. And neither Trump, nor Bolton, can lay a claim to always being right or having all the right answers. And there was enough of a distance between the president and Bolton that it became prudent for them to part ways.
Fourth, many on the Left are also focusing on those differences of opinion in other ways. Remember that it was only a little more than a decade ago that many on the Left were accusing George W. Bush and his cabinet of “groupthink” for so closely sharing a similar outlook on the world. Why, many liberals wondered at the time, could there not be a competition of ideas and perspectives among Bush’s cabinet members much the way of George Washington’s or Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet?
This was also extended to President Bush’s policies. “Staying the course” became a point of mockery for the Left, and Bush’s loyalty toward his cabinet members was dismissed as a kind of “bunker mentality.” But when Bush brought in somebody new, this was seized upon as “failure” in both policy and person rather than strategic change.
Now, that very same circumstance desired by some liberals has manifested itself in the Trump administration — and those same liberals are citing this as proof of “chaos” and “disunity” rather than the vaunted competition of different opinions, policies, and change. But this is all explained as political expedience for those on the Left who have taken contradictory positions: Trump, like Bush, can do nothing right.
At present, Trump will have to select a replacement for Bolton. Despite talk from many on the Left (and even some on the Right), again, nothing much will likely change. It is true that Bolton’s departure may mean the absence of a kind of moral American absolutism in favor of a more pragmatic approach to certain foreign issues; but an American-centric approach to foreign policy will certainly remain under the president’s America First philosophy.
But the one other thing that will probably be true is that, no matter who the president selects as the next national security advisor, the Left will object.
Joe Vigliotti is a Taneytown city councilman. His column appears every other Friday. He can be reached through his website at www.jvigliotti.com.