Recent weeks have seen president-elect Donald Trump begin to select cabinet appointments for his administration. Looking at Trump’s likely picks for positions concerned with foreign policy, Harry C. Blaney III argues that many of those that he is considering are either unqualified or would lead to serious damage to the country if they were appointed

Blaney III, Harry C.

LSE Research Online

12/1/2016Trump’s likely foreign policy cabinet picks range from theunqualified to the dangerousblogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/12/01/trumps-likely-foreign-policy-cabinet-picks-range-from-the-unqualified-to-the-dangerous/Recent weeks have seen president-elect Donald Trump begin to select cabinet appointments for hisadministration. Looking at Trump’s likely picks for positions concerned with foreign policy, Harry C.Blaney III argues that many of those that he is considering are either unqualified or would lead toserious damage to the country if they were appointed.Perhaps the greatest indicator of what will happen in any given administration is the people that arepicked for the top posts. I have watched this for many decades for both Democratic and Republicanadministrations and their choices, like the canaries in the coal mine, tell you what to expect andwhat to fear. This is especially the case in the foreign and national security area as the consequences can becatastrophic rather quickly and can make for disastrous long-term trends. It tells us also how Trump intends togovern, or is it rule?Bad choices often have a very high price in such areas as climate change, conflicts in the Middle East, dealing withour allies, and working with Russia and China, as well as dealing with nuclear weapons and getting our criticalintelligence right and not politicized.But the names that have so far emerged have shown a dangerous trend. It is not unlike the naming of StephenBannon as Counselor to the President and chief strategist and essentially policy co-equal to the White House Chief-of-Staff.  In his case we have next to the president’s office a racist, bigoted and alt-right Breitbart News head whichhas spewed the media and our citizens with hate for just about every minority and group one can conjure up. Theexception is the KKK, which endorsed Trump and rejoices in the lifting up of Bannon as one its own. That act alonehas cost us greatly in every decent nation and with citizens around the world that prize decency towards all and theworth of every human being.  It has given inspiration to every fascist group and dictator around the world and athome. That one appointment alone says much of what the new administration will be like.Just so is the case with the national security and foreign policy choices that have for some appointments come outof Trump Tower. Here are the latest developments for the key foreign and national security posts: They are all criticalpositions of importance like Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the heads of the intelligence agencies, andthe National Security Advisor to the President, who heads the National Security Council. We need to remember thatfor the Chiefs-of-Staff of the Armed Forces Trump gets to have the last say on appointments.Department of StateThe position of Secretary of State is a critical position as John Kerry has already demonstrated in his unbelievableefforts to act as peacemaker, peacekeeper and “Crisis Manager In-Chief”. The current crop of “likely suspects” hasalready been bantered around by leaks and media speculation. For the Department of State such names as RudyGiuliani, John Bolton, and perhaps a more responsible individual Stephen Hadley, a former George W. Bushnational security adviser, who unlike some other Bush types abstained from criticizing Trump during the campaign.Now the speculation has widened by leaks from Trump’s headquarters. Here is a short look at this long and ratherbizarre list:With regard to Bolton, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, who has a not very favorable reputation amongmany foreign affairs professionals and is known to be difficult to work with. He is the “macro” war hawk and hates1/4almost all global international organizations especially the United Nations.  Senator Rand Paul opposes both Boltonand Giuliani, with regard to Bolton in an editorial he wrote: “Bolton is a long-time member of the failed Washingtonelite that Trump voted to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made inthe last 15 years.”The other candidates according to the New York Times are: Senator from Tennessee and chairman of the SenateForeign Relations Committee Bob Corker, who has many strange ideas about foreign affairs and has been verypartisan.In the list is former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who campaign officials said last Tuesday is the leadingcontender for the job but has been a an attack dog for Trump during the campaign and has been roundly criticisedby many for his outlandish statements and campaign hate speech.South Carolina Governor Nikki R. Haley is on the list, with zero international experience, as are Former UnitedStates ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, former senior military commander in AfghanistanStanley A. McChrystal, and finally the 2012 Republican presidential nominee and former governor of MassachusettsMitt Romney.What can be said of the above group is that only Khalilzad and McChrystal have any relevant experience but eachhave serious faults and problems of their own, and the rest are utterly the worst possible candidates for thisdemanding job I have seen in 50 years of studying State secretaries or 25 years of working with them as a Memberof their Policy Planning Staff and a Foreign Service Officer. They are a kind of joke and likely a disaster in any highforeign affairs position.As for Gingrich, other than being a virulent extreme Trump pawn, he is as emotionally, morally, and in terms ofwisdom in foreign affairs as unfit for any high office as one can think of and especially the Secretary of State. He hasnow taken his name off the list and seeks at the moment to merely be an outside advisor. National Security AdvisorFor the position of National Security Advisor Lt. General Michael T. Flynn is to be the pick.  He is a man muchdisliked and mistrusted in national security circles both Democrat and Republican and whose hawkish stancesinclude views that the highest risk to America is “Islamist militancy” and according to a New York Times article will2/4revive George W. Bush’s global war against terrorism. He also has many conflicts of interest due to his financialconnection to such authoritarian regime as Turkey where he, while working with Trump, lobbied for the extradition ofa political opponent of Turkey’s president.Department of DefenseFor the Department of Defense one option that has been suggested is 39 year old Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton,who saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as an Army infantry officer and serves on the Armed Services Committeeand the select committee on intelligence of the Senate.  Stephen Hadley, national security adviser under George W.Bush is now also thought to be a possible candidate, but some sources have ruled him out.Duncan D. Hunter has also been named as possible for Defense Secretary. He is a Representative from California,a former Marine Officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, just 39 years old, serves on Armed ServicesCommittee, and was among the first two Members of the House to endorse Trump.Jon Kyl, former Senator from Arizona with a far right reputation, has also been named as a possible pick and formerSenator from Missouri Jim Talent, has been cited in the press as another. Finally and not least, James N. Mattis,Retired Marine Corps general and former commander of United States Central Command has risen in the ranks forpossible nomination. Intelligence community leadershipRep. Mike Pompeo, has been chosen for the job of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He is on theHouse Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and United States House Select Committee on EventsSurrounding the Twenty Twelve Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In that role he as been among the most wild partisanattack dogs against Hillary Clinton, ignoring almost all official reports that she was not to blame for the Benghazievents.For the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who overseas all of the intelligence agencies, NationalSecurity Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers is the leading candidate. Rogers met with Trump on Thursday and histransition team on Friday. Rudy Giuliani is also being considered for DNI, where he would be just as hopelesslyunqualified as Secretary of State.Attorney General: the international impact of this choiceBut with the pick of Senator Jeff Sessions, we not only get an Attorney General who has a racist past and can OKnow illegal torture and other actions including illegal surveillance, but one who can also use the FBI to punishpolitical opposition — like the “throw her in jail” or registration of Muslims calls made during the campaign by Trumpand others in his motley team. We could see a halting in enforcement of civil rights laws in America. These actionswill likely be upheld by the Supreme Court with a new Trump pick who’s qualification is holding the most extremeviews on all civil liberty, democratic voting protection, and fair governance, and agreeing with illegal presidentialorders. He would in effect essentially be a marionette responding yes to any request in the hands of Trump and hisfar right and racist views. These picks will not least sadly give cover to every obscene brutal act by foreign rulersaround the world. In sumThe only way I can sum up the meaning of these appointments is that he has chosen either just compliant stoogesor puppets or simply dangerous and unqualified and unbalanced people who can do great damage to our nation. Itcan also do the same to our global community by their acts of stupidity, crassness, and evil intent in opposition toevery democratic, humanitarian, and decent moral value in existence. More appointments are coming, but theseearly ones do not signal well for constructive American leadership in the world nor for our well-being and democracy3/4at home.Featured image credit: The White House (Flickr, US Government work)A version of this post originally appeared at the Rethinking National Security blog. Please read our comments policy before commenting.  Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP– American Politics and Policy, nor ofthe London School of Economics.  Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/2gaT0NH______________________ About the author Harry Blaney – Center for International PolicyHarry Blaney is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy. He brings over thirty years ofexperience in international affairs to CIP and has held senior positions in the federal government,policy research, and non-profit organizations. His experience includes the White House, StateDepartment, foreign affairs think tanks, and US diplomatic posts abroad. His main focus has beenon national security, including non-proliferation arms control, US-Europe relations, US-Russia, andglobal issues including energy, climate change, conflict zones, NATO, EU, and macro-strategicissues.CC BY-NC 3.0 2015 LSE USAPP4/4

Trump’s likely foreign policy cabinet picks range from the unqualified to the dangerous

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online