The Room Where It Happened

In these chapters the divisions between Bolton and Trump’s foreign policy worldviews deepen even further. It is almost absurd to recall the book’s opening chapter when Trump tells Bolton, “You know, you and I agree on almost everything except Iraq” (18). On Syria, Trump wants Turkey to finish off ISIS, while Bolton believes the political situation on the ground is too delicate for the US to withdraw. To Trump, Afghanistan is merely another “endless war” which he vowed to abandon on the campaign trail, while Bolton is sure that a US withdrawal would lead to a terrorist attack on the United States. Even on the matter of Venezuela, Trump calls for a US military assault, while Bolton recommends nonmilitary intervention, one of the only times the president is more hawkish than the author. This suggests a lack of coherence to Trump’s foreign policy views, at least when it comes to countries with weak central leadership.

Despite this apparent incoherence, there are some consistent strains to Trump’s philosophy on foreign relations. The first is Trump’s inclination to view foreign nations through the lens of domestic electoral politics. Unlike Russia, China, and North Korea, each of which has a strong leader whose actions could potentially affect the outcome of the US presidential election, countries like Afghanistan and Syria are viewed as “losers” in Trump’s mind. Thus, they are somebody else’s problem. Venezuela is something of an outlier—it is difficult to ascertain why Trump, who campaigned on ending endless wars, wants to step into another potential military quagmire in Venezuela. Given Trump’s broader approach toward foreign policy, it is possible he believes that a tough military response there would shore up support among his anti-socialist base. However, Bolton is quick to point out that even staunchly anti-Maduro Venezuelan and Cuban Americans are shocked to hear that a military option is on the table.

The second strain in Trump’s foreign policy doctrine, at least in Bolton’s view, is a lack of appreciation for the sacrifices of US troops. As of the 2020 election season, this continues to be an enormous point of contention in domestic politics. Bolton points out that some of Trump’s most vindictive asides are targeted at military veterans, including John McCain, John Kerry, and Mattis. Particularly disturbing is Bolton’s recollection of Trump’s less-than-solemn attitude toward wounded veterans at Walter Reed. Corroborating Bolton’s view of the president in this regard are countless news reports that have surfaced throughout Trump’s candidacy and presidency alleging insensitive or outright malicious comments about fallen US soldiers. Many of these reports are anonymous accounts, yet one need not rely on anonymous sources to sense Trump’s problematic attitude toward US troops. Trump has repeatedly disparaged McCain’s military record in public, most infamously when he told reporters at a campaign event, “[McCain’s] not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” (Schreckinger, Ben. “Trump attacks McCain: ‘I like people who weren’t captured.’” Politico, 18 July 2015.) Also on the campaign trail, Trump disparaged the Muslim parents of a fallen US soldier in an interview with ABC News. (Turnham, Steve. “Donald Trump to Father of Fallen Soldier: ‘I’ve made a lot of sacrifices.’” ABC News, 30 July 2016.)

Bolton also identifies Trump’s strong propensity to think of foreign policy issues through the lens of his personal grievances. This is particularly true of Trump’s attitude toward the War in Afghanistan. Each time the costly stalemate is discussed in a Principals meeting, Trump launches into a tirade about Mattis’s failed strategy on the ground. Even after the withdrawal of the nuclear deal, discussions on Iran inevitably lead to rants about John Kerry’s poor deal-making. And of course, the shadow of President Barack Obama looms over much of Trump’s decision-making. Bolton suggests that, had Trump known that Obama shared his view that NATO member countries don’t contribute a fair share to defense spending, the president might have reversed his opinion on the matter.

To Bolton, Trump’s opinions and methods on foreign policy pose a national security threat. Yet many observers view Trump’s divergent views as a positive thing for the country. In an article at Vox, journalist Alex Ward writes, “After reading former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s tell-all book, it becomes exceedingly clear that President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is terrible—but Bolton’s is much, much worse.” (Ward, Alex. “The real villain of John Bolton’s Trump book is John Bolton.” Vox, 24 June 2020.) Ward quotes US foreign policy expert Joshua Shifrinson, who believes that had Trump followed Bolton’s advice, the US would be engaged in “something equivalent to two more Iraq Wars.” This may be an overstatement. While Bolton makes clear that he believes regime changes, likely initiated by US military campaigns, are the only solution to protecting America from Iran and North Korea, he never directly counsels Trump to do this. Nevertheless, had Trump been more receptive to his national security team’s advice—as Bolton’s former boss George W. Bush had been—it is possible that Bolton would have been emboldened to recommend such moves.

The divide between Bolton and Trump may indicate a broader split within the Republican Party at large. Trump’s campaign message to “end endless wars” clearly resonated with voters, even if it was a departure from Republican messaging during the post-9/11 era and the Cold War. Yet some observers say it would be a mistake to believe that future Republican presidents won’t return to a foreign policy doctrine similar to Bolton’s. In his article at Vox, Ward points to prospective 2024 Republican presidential candidate Tom Cotton, whose hawkish views are more in line with that of Bolton and his Bush-era ilk. He quotes US foreign policy expert Justin Logan, who says, “A lot of the ideas that [Bolton] holds have more currency in Washington than you would hope.” Moreover, a 2019 Gallup poll shows that support for the War in Afghanistan continues to cleave heavily along party lines, with a majority of Republicans saying the war protected the US from terrorism and a majority of Democrats saying it made the US less safe. (Reinhart, RJ. “US Views Mixed on War in Afghanistan.” Gallup, 11 Sep. 2019.)

Finally, Bolton begins to show the transactional nature of Trump’s approach toward foreign policy, which in his view often constitutes obstruction of justice. This is reflected here by Trump’s dealings with President Erdogan and his offer to impede the Southern District of New York’s investigation into Halkbank. This is only the first of many similar instances that greatly trouble Bolton, as Trump engages in a dynamic that culminates in the 2019 Ukraine scandal and his subsequent impeachment.