John Bolton Isn’t Worth A Moment Of Anyone’s Concern
Yesterday, the world became a safer place. And it was because of something Donald Trump, of all people, did. He accomplished this unlikely feat by dismissing his National Security Advisor, John Bolton. Having served in his post for the past year and a half, Bolton was seemingly the architect of the Trump administration’s most hawkish, aggressive and dangerous foreign policies, whether it be towards Iran, Venezuela, Eastern Europe, or on the Korean peninsula. Between that and his track record in the George W. Bush administration, where he championed the war in Iraq and a would-be conflict with Iran, Bolton has a longer track record of warmongering than perhaps anyone else in Washington. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the Trump administration (my own being extremely low), this should be a cause for celebration or, at the very least, breathing a sigh of relief. And yet, for a number of prominent figures in both Democratic politics and the media, the firing of Bolton was just the opposite. To be blunt: don’t listen to these people. This reflects all of the worst aspects of the reaction Trump has inspired, and the same thinking that led the Hillary Clinton campaign to think that bragging about all of the Republican endorsements she had garnered was a sound political move. On both strategy and substance, it is the wrong thing to do for anyone who does not want to see Trump re-elected in 2020.
The Jewish concept of mitzvot, or fulfilling of obligations, has a number of levels to it. The lowest level is that of a mitzvah that is performed not out of kindness, godliness or sense of duty, but either grudgingly or for selfish reasons. And yet it still counts as fulfilled. The self-proclaimed “King of the Jews” may be blissfully unaware of that fact, but his firing of Bolton is an example of the lowest form of mitzvah playing out on the world stage. We will likely never know precisely what caused Trump to finally relieve Bolton of his post as National Security Adviser, but in so doing he has removed perhaps the most dangerous policy maker in his administration. It may be out of nothing more than narcissism, a desire to self-aggrandize, to be seen as a great dealmaker on the world stage, but there is a latent tendency within Trump to want to negotiate with certain countries that many in the foreign policy establishment, such as Bolton, would rather deal with by force of arms- to disastrous ends in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere around the world. Almost from the beginning of his time as NSA, Bolton undermined Trump’s efforts to reach a peaceful solution in volatile regions of the world, starting with his April 2018 comments that the U.S. would favor “the Libya model” of denuclearizaton with regards to North Korea. This conjured images of the fate of Libya’s late leader Muammar Qaddafi, who abandoned his nuclear program in the early 2000s after having been given assurances by the Bush administration (where Bolton himself had been serving as Undersecretary for Arms Control at the State Department), that if he did so he would not be targeted for regime change like Saddam Hussein. The U.S. then backed the 2011 insurgency against him, that would ultimately see him overthrown and killed in horrific fashion by opposition militants. Bolton’s comments were essentially telling Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump was undergoing historic negotiations at the time, that any U.S. promises were not to be trusted. It was an act of insubordination that, under a more competent President, should have been a firing offense. Rest assured, Trump does not escape responsibility here- he appointed Bolton in the first place, and inexplicably kept him in his post for over a year despite their apparent repeated disagreements on these sensitive issues.
The last straw for Bolton was reportedly his and Trump’s disagreement over easing sanctions on Iran, in order to entice Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to meet face to face with Trump, as Kim Jong Un had done. This perhaps makes it less surprising, although no less disappointing, that top Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed “concern” over the firing of Bolton. Upon hearing this news, I shook my head in, if not surprise, disappointment and resignation. Schumer at least likely has a certain sympathy with Bolton’s Iran hawkishness; during the Obama administration, he initially opposed Obama’s Iran deal, before later coming around to support it. But by doing this, they are playing into Trump’s hands.
A major aspect of Trump’s ability to make himself a credible anti-establishment candidate in 2016 was the fact that he was the only Republican candidate who criticized (in his blustering, inconsistent way)American military interventions overseas and permanent wars that had been shepherded along by people like the Bushes (a key moment during the primary debates was when he called Jeb Bush out for his brother’s failures in Iraq)and John Bolton. Trump surely knows as well as anyone that he has failed to deliver on this campaign promise; we are still in Afghanistan, still in Syria, and our relations with Iran are worse than they have ever been. The response of Democratic leaders and media figures like Joe Scarborough puts them in the role of Jeb Bush in contrast to Trump. With his approval ratings sinking, the only way that Trump can win is by recreating the atmosphere of 2016 with himself against the establishment, and part of the firing of Bolton may have been a calculated move to restore this dynamic.
If Donald Trump was serious about being against endless interventions and wars overseas, he would have never hired John Bolton in the first place. But if, at this late date, he wants to engage in constructive processes like dialogue with Hassan Rouhani or a long overdue negotiation with the Taliban (who the U.S. has failed to defeat on the battlefield after eighteen years in Afghanistan, and who de facto control the majority of that country’s territory), then so be it. He may be the wrong man, but it is the right action. The alternative of attempting to gin up a “rally around the flag” effect by stirring conflict with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of Trump attempting to make peace to make himself look good, you should be. But Trump attempting to make war to make himself look good is a far, far worse scenario. The firing of John Bolton makes that less likely, and that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.
