Clicky
Opinion

The political demise of a reckless hawk


Bangladeshpost
Published : 13 Sep 2019 07:21 PM | Updated : 30 Aug 2020 08:49 AM

We know that just a few months ago John Bolton was one of the most influential individuals on Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Remember, it was John Bolton who compelled Trump to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.  It was John Bolton who pressed Trump to go to Venezuela and advocate a coup against president Maduro. But over the last three months, the president has overruled Bolton’s advice on almost every single major foreign policy issue. Hence, the departure of John Bolton, Trump’s third national-security adviser, came as no surprise. It had been predicted so many times during Bolton’s sixteen contentious months in the administration that few in Washington ought to have been surprised when the moment came. Bolton has been widely and accurately reported to disagree with key aspects of Trump’s policies toward Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Bolton’s departure follows a series of disagreements over US foreign policy at the highest levels of the Trump administration, including how to respond to provocations from Iran and North Korea as well as Mr Trump’s recent effort to negotiate a peace accord with the Taliban in Afghanistan. While Trump continues to support denuclearisation negotiations with North Korea and has said he would meet the leaders of Iran, Bolton was deeply sceptical about that stance.

On so many issues -- North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela -- President Trump's national security adviser's pugnacious views and advice repeatedly clashed with those of his unpredictable boss.  On Iran, Trump said he would meet president Ruhani to discuss a peace deal again, something that has been vigorously opposed by Mr Bolton. On North Korea, the president keeps expressing his sheer optimism and saying nice things about Kim Jung Un even though Kim keeps firing missiles test. Again, something that Bolton himself has objected to. On Afghanistan, President Trump had suggested having a meeting at Camp David with the Taliban, again against the advice of John Bolton. On Venezuela, Trump has done almost nothing since Bolton advocated for a coup in Caracas. Certainly, all these issues have compelled Trump to fire John Bolton. 

Prudent politicians would welcome the departure of the reckless hawk (John Bolton) who bears much responsibility for so much of the appalling American foreign policy in the past. John Bolton is a warmonger wacko bereft of prescience and critical thinking skills. And he's not a team player either. It is believed that the firing of Bolton will pave the way for Trump to open talks with the Iranians, which he has long wanted and Bolton has fiercely resisted. It would not be a wild exaggeration to say that prospects for world peace rose markedly on Tuesday.

It needs no emphasizing that the threat of war around the world is greatly diminished with Bolton out of the White House. Bolton’s ideology to establish a hawkish world order has been proven as naïve and very wrong over the last few years. Bolton had a naive point of view for the world that American should topple regimes everywhere and institute democratic governments and they would make the world perfect or remake the world in their image. Such an absurd Bolton hypothesis has been devastating for the entire world.

The firing of Bolton was viewed as another victory for Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, who enjoys a very close relationship with Trump. Bolton’s removal leaves Trump unencumbered to pursue his improbable deals without internal reproach. This would likely include a fresh effort at talks with Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s dictator, whom Trump last met in June on the 38th parallel at Panmunjom. 

Bolton’s long-simmering feud with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his team also spilled out into plain view when Pompeo confirmed that they disagreed on many issues, contradicting his previously routine claims that the administration was unified.  Bolton thought Pompeo’s North Korea diplomacy was counterproductive, and he wanted to take an even harder line than the US State Department on Iran. But on Tuesday, Pompeo seemed to reveal his own personal view that Bolton was working against Trump’s agenda. Trump “should have people that he trusts and values and whose efforts and judgements benefit him in delivering American foreign policy”, Pompeo said at a sanctions-related news conference Bolton had been scheduled to attend. “That is what, as Cabinet members, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and I try to do each and every day.” A year ago, Pompeo and Bolton, both conservative hawks, were aligned, and Mnuchin was the outlier. Now, the tables have turned and Pompeo and Mnuchin jointly celebrated Bolton’s ouster.

“The president’s view of the Iraq War and Ambassador Bolton’s was very different. The president has made that very clear,” Mnuchin volunteered.

The national security adviser may have been the most ferocious of the voices urging Trump to turn up the pressure on Iran, but he was certainly not alone. Bolton’s presence in the White House was frightening. Whether one loves Trump or hates him, it's impossible to conclude anything other than that Trump fired Bolton on a whim -- or in a pique of annoyance at Bolton's hawkish tendencies.

History of mankind is full of great leaders who fought and won military victories, from Revolutionary War hero George Washington to Abraham Lincoln’s civil war and World War II’s FDR. Since the inception of war, there has always been this notion among the great world leaders that victory in a war is the key to greatness.

In his regard, we might say that President Trump has been different from any other American president found on the pages of history. If George W Bush went into his successful 2004 re-election campaign embracing his role as a “war president,” Trump may angle to win a 2020 re-election as the nation’s “peace president.” 

It needs no emphasizing that Trump has brought the middle-east on the brink of ignition by cancelling his plans for military action against Iran despite being warned by Iranian officials saying that Iran is ready to “firmly confront any aggression.”

Reportedly, the cancelled strike was planned as retaliation for the Iranian downing of a United State’s unmanned aerial vehicle over the Strait of Hormuz. The attack marks an escalation with tensions already running high between the US and Iran. There is no denying that the attack brought US and Iran closer to a devastating war but the way Trump dealt with this issue should be considered as great lesson for the world leaders which is certainly grounded on the notion of ‘world peace’.  Despite the presence of hawks like John Bolton in his administration, Trump seems to have little interest in putting boots on the ground. Nor does the US public have any appetite for a major conflagration.

Throughout its history, America has attacked countries that did not threaten it. To carry out such wars, American leaders have contrived pretexts to justify American aggression. That is what Donald Trump’s administration is not doing. Trump has evidently been different from his former counterparts. In his State of the Union, said great nations do not fight perpetual wars, and he is absolutely right, but that defies the orthodoxy of the establishing foreign policy in Washington. Therefore, Trump needs to unearth somebody who has the guts to stand up to the orthodoxy, not someone who is part of the swamp.


The writer is editorial 

assistant, Bangladesh Post.