By Jonathan Greenberg, Originally published in the Daily Caller
Donald Trump loves a deal. Of course, he prefers a good deal. But he’s also made plenty of bad ones in his long and prolific career (law of averages, I guess). So if we’re going to subscribe to the Monty Hall doctrine of foreign policy, it might be time to ask whether a default setting that favors deal-making is in America’s or our allies’ best interests.
Though Trump has repeatedly promised to produce a list of foreign policy advisors (the latest promise
was broken two weeks ago) and acknowledged in last week’s debate that he “likes” Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haass and Fox News National Security Analyst retired General Jack Keane, no list has been forthcoming. So voters still have no idea who, if anyone, is advising him. Meanwhile, his pronouncements on foreign policy alternate between bellicose (“bomb the s**t out of them”) and pacifist (“we cannot continue to be the policeman of the world”), but never detailed. As an ideologically diverse group of GOP national security experts wrote in an open letter
published last week, “he swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.”
Trump’s application to politics of his proclivity for deal-making is a frequent topic. For example, see here,
where the future Dealmaker in Chief will let you in on such profound insights as “when you’re dealing with Russia, it may be different than dealing with China.” But is pushing for a deal always a good idea?
Continue reading the Daily Caller…