What the resignation of U.S. secretary of defense James Mattis means for Trump’s foreign policy: some thoughts from a European perspective - a thread.
There are two main dimensions of the global system which America underwrites with its power since decades: a trade dimension and a security dimension.
Trump has started to attack the trade system (trade war with China) but has left the security system largely intact, to the relief of Europeans.
It’s the dominant view however that Trump wants to change the security system too, but so far failed to follow up on his rhetoric because of the restraining influence of his secretary of defense, James Mattis.
The departure of Mattis indicates that he has lost the influence he had. Apparently Trump decided to pull US troops out of Syria against Mattis’ will.
This indicates that Trump is not content anymore to control just the trade dimension of US foreign policy: he wants to control the security dimension as well.
Being sidelined, Mattis had no choice but to resign. He decided to do so with a big bang, accusing Trump implicitly of acting against U.S. interests by weakening alliances and failing to stand up against competitors.
What does Trump unbound mean for U.S. and global security? It certainly means more „America first“ and probably more „America alone“.
The question is how far Trump will go without Mattis: whether he is ready for disruption or whether he still respects main elements of US security policy.
His decision to pull out of Syria (and probably out of Afghanistan) is quite radical, disruptive; Trump seems to be ready to accept trade-offs (such as an emboldened Iran in Syria which is a threat to Israel).
Whether pulling out of the Greater Middle East (if not reversed) is driven by larger strategic considerations, such as increased focus on Asia, or just driven by the impulse to please Trump’s base is hard to say.
It is also difficult to assess what an unchained Trump means for Europe, NATO and Russia. Mattis has been seen as the main guarantor of transatlantic continuity and as a stable force behind a NATO that is investing in reassurance and deterrence against Russia.
For Europeans, the departure of Mattis therefore brings back all the questions that Trump’s election has raised: will Trump cozy up to Putin over the heads of Europeans, weaken NATO, follow up on his aggressive rhetoric against the EU and Germany?
Mattis’ departure puts one big question on the agenda for 2019: Are we going to see president Trump 2.0, the radical, disruptive figure we know from Twitter, leading on US foreign policy? And if so, will there be any recognizable strategy others can work with, or just chaos?
