Editor's Note: The piece below was written earlier in the week by Hedgeye Potomac National Security Analyst General Dan Christman. If you're an institutional investor email sales@hedgeye.com to read our research.
A favorite exercise for junior military and intelligence officers during the Cold War was studying the array of Soviet leaders poised atop Lenin's tomb for insights on "who's really in charge?" The lack of transparency in Soviet decision-making forced many of us to look not only at arrays like this, but at other indirect indicators: pictures on walls of official buildings, job titles (were they capitalized or not?), seatings at official meetings.
Understanding how President Trump arrives at decisions on foreign policy seems no less arcane. No sooner are key decisions made or meetings held that suggest, in the words of NYT columnist David Sanger, that the "President is reverting to (centrist Republican) norm" than he acts in ways that are both confusing and, in many cases, damaging to US interests.
On the one hand, for example:
- The president executed a Syria attack that was widely applauded for restoring a credible deterrence line on chemical weapon use;
- Delicately hosted a critical meeting with the Chinese president;
- Hit the right notes in greeting the NATO SECGEN; and
- Pushed key U.S. interests in meetings with the heads of state from Egypt and Jordan.
But within weeks of these events, and just as analysts were growing somewhat comfortable that the president's ear was increasingly tuned to seasoned national security advisors in his inner circle, Mr. Trump appeared to revert to campaign form:
- Our most important European ally, Chancellor Angela Merkel, was all but dissed in the Oval Office;
- In the wake of Brexit, other EU countries were softly encouraged to consider their own "exits;"
- And by far the most troubling, just a week ago, Marine Le Pen, the far right National Front leader of France, received everything but a formal endorsement from the president: "She's the strongest on what's been going on in France."
How are these meetings and widely differing pronouncements explained?
There is a "Lenin's Tomb" mystique to some of this; but as the administration matures, some contours - "pictures on the wall," at least for foreign policy -- are becoming clearer. For example, if the issues touch on military operations, defense policy, or national security directly, the president appears to defer almost completely to HR McMaster, SECDEF General Jim Mattis, the Chairman of the JCS General Joe Dunford, and U.S. theater combatant commanders. The ongoing military deployments focused on North Korea, the Syria cruise missile attack, the campaign against ISIS, and operations in Afghanistan are all illustrative.
And increasingly on international economics, as the Trump team of Wilbur Ross, Steve Mnuchin, and Robert Lighthizer settles into place, one gets the impression that, while some plates might be broken on trade, adults are in charge.
It's a different story if the issues touch on international politics or international organizations with no direct national security issue at stake; in that event, it's a knife fight in the West Wing; and the advisor wielding the sharpest knife is Steve Bannon.
- Mr. Bannon has made no secret of his admiration of "ethno-nationalism" in political leaders; and he harps on the "loss of sovereignty" that results when any nation submits to the authority of international organizations and treaties. The former might explain why the president implicitly endorsed Le Pen; and the latter almost certainly explains the treatment of Merkel, Europe's foremost supporter of the EU and its supra-national institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg.
- Other voices surely contend in this open space, including Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner, Steven Miller, and Nikki Haley; but to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of Steve Bannon's political death "are greatly exaggerated!" His influence, and the president’s judgment, will be tested not just in the weeks ahead -- France is still not out of the woods despite the sense of relief after first round results -- but in other key European elections later this year, especially in Germany and Italy.
And to remind: Russia, throughout all of this, remains in strategic over-watch, with its information organs working overtime to influence results. After all, who knows better who’s really in charge in DC, Paris or Berlin than veterans of “Lenin’s Tomb” power struggles?
