Can the U.S. stop being the globe's policeman?

World
Europe

Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a UK-based political analyst. The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

At Christmas time, U.S. President Donald Trump, while making a surprise visit to the soldiers stationed in Iraq, made remarks that he wanted to end America's role as what he termed a “global policeman”.

The comments, specifically designed to defend his withdrawal of troops stationed in neighboring Syria, very much fitted in with his “America First” mantra that such deployments should benefit the U.S above all.

In other words, those recipients should have to pay for deployment and that Washington should avoid being “taken advantage of” by “other countries.”

Trump's comments are not new, they have been a part of his discourse since the very beginning of his presidential campaign, one which more reflected isolationism than the militarist pattern of interventionism that has constantly characterized America's foreign policy since 1917.

U.S. President Donald Trump greets members of the US military during a stop at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, December 27, 2018. /VCG Photo

But is such a move possible? The president has a vision, but it is ultimately one which is going against the tide of a wider system and consensus in Washington which believes overseas deployments are in fact crucial, rather than contrary to U.S interests.

So, can it be achieved?

The philosophy of military interventionism in Washington emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction to international events which consolidated the belief that America's national interests could not be maintained by simply sitting in isolation and as a result, an active and forwards role in the world was mandated.

The experience of World War I had consolidated a transition in perception that if the United States simply sat out on world affairs as it had for most of the conflict, its broader interests would suffer. As a booming economy which would eventually grow to maintain a global influence, it could no longer afford to ignore far-reaching areas of the world.

Thereafter, Woodrow Wilson would initiate the famous “13 points” in which he presented a vision for an international system led by America, expressing his belief the country had a fundamental right and mission to evangelize its values to the world.

The events and aftermath of World War II, then of course, the exacerbated fears of communism and the emerging Cold War would only serve to consolidate what would emerge as a highly interventionist foreign policy; the belief that America must continually engage itself in world affairs and maintain a global military presence.

This has built the world we see today and thus the notion of a “global policeman”. America has over 800 overseas military bases and a wide-ranging range of troop deployments from Europe, to the Middle East, to the Asia-Pacific.

In addition, there have of course been countless numbers of conflicts wherein they have been used, including most recently Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. In two of the three mentioned, conflicts involving American soldiers have now lasted entire generations. There was until Trump's comments, no signs of that stopping.

But the President is now doubling down quite surprisingly on “America First”. Foreign countries should pay for American troops rather than “taking advantage” he claims.

Jim Mattis, U.S. Secretary of Defense, listens during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, not pictured, and congressional leadership in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 28, 2017. /VCG Photo

Of course, he is presenting the situation as if it is simple. It isn't, but nevertheless, it is an effective message. Yet how can the effort be sustained?

By publicly opposing such deployments, Trump, in fact, goes up against a longstanding ironclad consensus in Washington. His actions are agreed with by nobody there, not even his own cabinet to say the least, hence the resignation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

So will America stop being a “global policeman? Unlikely. Trump can make some noise, but he does not have the political space nor support to unilaterally cancel hundreds of U.S agreements, alliances, and treaties across the world that mandates it.

Most of the U.S.' military presence is going nowhere for the most part, even if he was to limit its actual usage. He can use the threat of withdrawal and cost sharing as a negotiation tactic, which he is clearly doing with South Korea, but the actual power he has to change that is limited.

As the media backlash against him shows, he is taking a stance which is largely that of an outsider in Washington. The next administration, if that's not dominated by Trump, will undoubtedly seek to reverse course.

(Cover photo: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the US military during an unannounced trip to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, December 26, 2018. /VCG Photo)

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)