The struggle to give a soul to a soulless presidency - By Michael Gerson

[DonViejo]

Michael Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Post.

In a conversation with an ambassador from Asia a few years ago, I asked why her country was still more favorably disposed to the United States than to a rising China. “Because we know what you believe in,” she responded. Since World War II, the United States has operated in the Pacific with a certain set of interests and values. Both, she said, are “less clear” with respect to China.

It is predictability that builds and maintains alliances. It is constancy that enforces red lines, allowing others to accurately calculate the limits of American patience. It is vagueness and impulsiveness that invite testing and the possibility of deadly miscalculation.

President Trump has now placed his own line in the Syrian sand: At the very least, the Assad regime must not use chemical weapons against civilians in its showdown assault on the Idlib province. But is this commitment the expression of a set of values with broader implications? Does it reflect an expansive interpretation of America’s global role, including the responsibility to protect civilians when feasible? Or is it the enforcement of a narrow norm against the use of weapons of mass destruction?

We have no idea which interpretation is correct, because Trump himself is unlikely to know. Like on health care, he seems to be encountering these issues for the very first time. It is unlikely that he played through the scenarios of humanitarian intervention and regime change during campaign policy briefings with national security experts. Trump’s Stephen Bannon-ridden inaugural address claimed that the world’s troubles are not the United States’ problem. But then there are the “babies” killed by an apparent nerve agent.

On Syria, Trump’s message has gone from mixed to pureed. Apparently, engagement in Syria is both a stupid move and a moral necessity. On foreign policy, Trump is ideologically rootless. He seems to have no considered views about the world, just confidence about his own abilities as a leader. And this places an unsettling randomness at the heart of America’s global role.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-struggle-to-give-a-soul-to-a-soulless-presidency/2017/04/10/a3fc4b66-1e15-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html?utm_term=.e5e83a82d5c6&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[scarletwoman]

1. *kick*