In a notable shake-up during Trump’s second term, Michael Waltz has been let go from his position as national security adviser. While the White House hasn’t elaborated on this, sources suggest that Waltz’s addition of Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a chat group concerning a recent U.S. strike in Yemen may have played a role.
However, it seems that Waltz’s removal touches on deeper issues within the administration, illustrating an ongoing internal conflict regarding the nation’s security stance. This kind of discord isn’t new in American politics. From the Federalists under Hamilton to Jefferson’s Republicans, the struggle over foreign policy has heavily influenced governance throughout history.
A solid national strategy demands focus and discipline. The U.S. needs to concentrate on its core objectives rather than engage in limitless military endeavors.
Recently, Hal Brands from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out five competing factions influencing U.S. foreign policy under Trump. Among these, the Global Hawks and the Come Home, America groups hold the most sway.
The Global Hawks, often labeled as neoconservatives, include figures like Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They argue for the necessity of maintaining U.S. global security leadership, supporting a proactive strategy against nations such as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea, and advocating for the preservation of long-standing alliances, albeit with a need for contractual revisions.
In contrast, the “come home” faction critiques what they describe as an “eternal war” mentality stemming from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their primary aim is to lessen American military footprint in the Middle East and oppose military aid to Ukraine, fearing increased tensions with Russia. Prominent advocates include Vice President JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard.
Brands also identifies three more factions: “Asia Fast Star,” “Economic Nationalists,” and “MAGA Hardliners.” Of these, the alliance between the “Come Home, America” and “MAGA Hardliners” seems the most impactful, potentially overturning decades of Republican foreign policy to the detriment of U.S. interests.
Power Without Direction
Traditionally, since the Vietnam War, the Republican Party has championed national security, strong defenses, and reliable military alliances. Trump predominantly adhered to these principles during his first term, taking a firmer stance, especially regarding South Asia, when compared to Obama’s more meandering policies in Afghanistan.
Yet, as HR McMaster reveals in his memoirs, Trump often veered off these principles. While many of his instincts were sound, he frequently abandoned them under pressure, or simply disregarded them altogether.
Some commentators interpret Waltz’s dismissal as a sign that the “come home” perspective is gaining traction within the White House. However, the future remains uncertain. Yet, one thing is evident: turning away from traditional Republican defense strategies would be a mistake.
The central issue is not merely having military capability. It’s about utilizing that power within a coherent strategy aimed at safeguarding U.S. interests. Too often, national security in Washington is wrongly viewed as a means to achieve some idealized “international community,” a trap that ensnared both Obama’s and George W. Bush’s administrations—they strayed from their true objectives.
As Aristotle noted, prudence is a vital political virtue. It involves aligning means with ends. In foreign policy, this translates to establishing clear goals and intentionally utilizing force and influence when necessary.
A Return to Effective Strategies
Since the 1990s, U.S. foreign policy has often exuded overconfidence rather than caution. Democratic leaders like Clinton, Obama, and Biden have relied heavily on global institutions, mistakenly believing that U.S. power should uphold lofty international norms. Their aim has been to create a so-called “global good,” a version of globalism that often overlooks national interests and patriotism.
These administrations have struggled to clearly differentiate allies from adversaries. Obama’s approach, particularly towards Iran, was exceptionally muddled and ended up compromising both Israel and Sunni Arab states. More recently, Biden’s treatment of Israel has similarly undermined a crucial ally.
Conversely, George W. Bush chased a misguided vision of reshaping the Middle East through a lens of American liberal ideals. This mission crumbled under the realities of religious strife and tribal conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while China quietly gained power unnoticed.
The best way to secure American freedom and prosperity is to revert to a Cold War-like strategy that successfully dismantled the Soviet Union and cemented the U.S. as a preeminent global force.
Ronald Reagan summed it up succinctly: Peace through strength.
This could be termed Prudent American realism. This approach merges principles with power, recognizing that internal unity is vital. Thucydides pointed this out over two millennia ago in his work, “The Peloponnesian War,” illustrating how both Athens and Sparta tried to promote regimes reflecting their values.
The takeaway? Nations are more secure when surrounded by allies who share their principles.
Understanding Restraint
Prudence also entails restraint. While the nature of governance matters, advocating for universal democracy is a misguided venture. The Bush administration’s post-9/11 attempts serve as a cautionary tale.
Resources are finite. Crafting an effective strategy hinges on focus and discipline. The U.S. must prioritize its objectives and avoid squandering its power on expansive military campaigns abroad.
Reagan’s approach to foreign policy recognized this timeless principle. Diplomacy and power should be seen as intertwined. Nonetheless, U.S. decision-makers have often become ensnared in the utopian ideals of liberal internationalism, acting as if diplomacy alone could fulfill strategic ends. As Frederick once remarked, “diplomacy without power is like music without instruments.”
A robust strategy must treat diplomacy and force as complementary elements.
Trump would do well to reflect on Reagan’s legacy, maintaining a proactive stance that projects strength globally, ensures freedom of navigation, and fortifies support from key allies.
Strategically, clarity in goals is essential. This might involve considering the “rimlands” of Eurasia, a concept developed by Nicholas Spykman. This strategic framework helps address the ambitions of major powers like Russia and China.
This approach has served the U.S. well in the past, and it’s a lesson worth revisiting.
