Read on Twitter
Some (really) off-the-cuff thoughts about the Trump natsec news (Iraq/Afghan drawdown, Iran Almost-War 2). Half-formed but inspired by (halting) work on my book on elite cues and war, plus chats with @thescottwolford. 1/
First, I think @dandrezner is right in this column re: Afghanistan (channeling @LorenRaeDeJ): it's Trump's prerogative to draw down but likelihood of it going smoothly is low and leverage declining because the Taliban know it. 2/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/15/two-wrongs-rarely-make-right-trumps-foreign-policy/
See also @asfandyarmir's recent @monkeycageblog on the (very sad and bloody) state of play in Afghanistan, from right before the election: 3/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/01/what-will-americas-commitment-afghanistan-look-like-after-election/
It was interesting, in this period of much Republican elite silence on, well, you know, that there was pushback on Trump's Afghanistan move. Only latest in long string of Senate R pushback on Trump moves like this. 4/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/16/mcconnell-trump-afghan-troop-reduction-436821
Leaving aside debates about whether this is "blob"/establishment pushing back, what about politics of this? In olden times, you'd expect this kind of same-party criticism to matter. Maybe not in lame duck but this is hardly the first of these incidents. 5/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2019/02/02/the-senate-and-intelligence-community-rebuked-trump-on-national-security-this-week-heres-why-that-matters-a-lot/
But under Trump, none of this seemed to matter. And neither did the string of leaks/firings/resignations of top national security officials--most notably Mattis. I don't think this take of mine aged particularly well, for example. 6/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/12/21/these-are-the-3-reasons-that-jim-mattiss-resignation-is-not-just-unusual-but-startling/
Usually these kinds of episodes factor into an overall view of a leader's competence. They function as a kind of "fire alarm," alerting people to think about national security as a competence signal, when usually they don't. But it seems the signal has broken down under Trump. 7/
Maybe it's that there were so many fire alarms, everyone just slowly shuffles outside to wait for the all clear. Last week's total shrug at the Pentagon firings is only latest example. 8/
Polarization also doesn't help. R presidents have advantage of trust on natsec, & a reputation to protect. But if they get votes no matter what, do they have any incentive to worry about the politics? Also true for Senate R's--criticism no longer as damaging to the president. 9/
So perhaps the (already-tenuous) link between foreign policy competence and political accountability has been further weakened by (1) Trump and (2) polarization. These signals just ain't what they used to be. 10/
Still, this Iran story... @mchorowitz and I might have to dust off the "don't panic" playbook one more time. 11/11 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
PS further to (8), could be that there are so many signals about competence (Covid, etc) that natsec gets swamped unless there is actually a war or something. Or that impeachment cemented the blurred line between personal and policy for Trump. But in any case, a degraded signal.
