Two ladies I like are featured in my Friday posts. Here I am referring to the always refreshing Ann Coulter, along with Cato Institute scholar Emma Ashford. Donald Trump could do worse that inviting the two ladies to an informal policy discussion dinner. From Ms. Ashford:
In a political landscape dominated by neoconservative and hawkish candidates, some of Trump’s statements are certainly appealing. He admits that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a view now shared by a majority of Americans. He decries the costs of nation-building and consistent military intervention abroad.
Trump has also criticized American military spending to defend U.S. allies in NATO and elsewhere around the world. The United States spends the lion’s share of both NATO’s budget, and its operational costs. It is little wonder, perhaps, that Trump’s point resonates with many Americans who wonder why they should be picking up the tab for our some of our wealthiest allies.
Yet though Trump sometimes advocates more restrained foreign policy ideas, he frequently also expresses extremely hawkish ideas. At his AIPAC speech, Trump pledged to prevent regional aggression by Iran, and promised to dismantle the Obama administration’s nuclear deal. He promises to “knock the hell out of ISIS,” and proposed sending 20,000 to 30,000 troops to fight the group.
Not only do Trump’s advisers present no clear picture of whether or not he would pursue a more restrained foreign policy, the list is so short and so scattershot that it seems likely Trump is still having substantial difficulties attracting experienced foreign policy advisers.
Unfortunately, greater exposure to Trump’s ideas has not substantially increased our understanding of his foreign policy views. His consistent unpredictability is problematic for the effective and rational conduct of foreign policy.