Trump can learn from Nixon
Given the expressions of joy emanating out of the neo-conservative camp, Donald Trump had become one of their members. Certainly Lindsay Graham, with his ecstatic look of a man whose love of war was complete, stumbled over himself to see his old rival in a new light. And, of course, the “security team,” that group of Vietnam revanchist H.R. McMasters and James “Mad Dog” Mattis, were praised for advancing the warfare state. Completing the cycle was Fareed Zakarias, who lectured liberals that Trump was not all bad. What a transformation in just under a week.
But how much did Trump really deviate from his rhetoric and outlook? He praised Vladimir Putin as a strong leader, nothing more, nothing less, suggesting that the Russian president only understood commensurate strength, which Trump promised to provide. As for Afghanistan, that had been in the planning stage before Trump’s inauguration. As for North Korea, the president did the expected. In a sense, his behavior was textbook rather than a dramatic shift.
Indeed, President Dwight Eisenhower, through his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, engaged in “brinkmanship.” What this entailed was to seem to take the world to the “brink” of war without having any intentions of doing such a thing. There were rumblings that he was going to rescue the French at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954. He didn’t,but he prepared instead to pursue an alternative approach. In 1955, he had a confrontation with Communist China over two islands in the Pescadores near Formosa. In the end he sent the 7th fleet to prevent our allies from doing something stupid.
During the 1950s, when there were more red lines than on a peppermint stick, some were crossed. In 1956 the USSR crushed the Hungarian revolt and Ike slapped Great Britain, France and Israel for invading Egypt. Like Trump, Eisenhower knew the value of symbolism, but he also had a policy of flexible containment. And moreover, having been a great general, he took the advice of subordinates with more than a grain of salt.
His Vice-President Richard Nixon had a variation of brinkmanship he called with lack of subtlety the “madman theory.” He claimed that Eisenhower threatened to use atomic weaponry if China did not persuade North Korea to sign a truce in 1953. Nixon was so convinced that he threatened “savage, punishing blows,” code named “duck hook,” and hinted at using nuclear weapons if North Vietnam did not fold its cards in 1969. They called his bluff and the game continued.
Nixon would use this technique with varying degrees of success. One failure was his attempt to stop India’s advance in Pakistan during the war of Bangladesh independence. He did save Pakistan a chunk of Kashmir, sort of a success. He would place America on high alert a number of times –a modern record. And, of course, he resorted to bombing in Vietnam, all the while withdrawing troops. Style points maybe, real results, not much.
Trump might learn a lesson from Nixon that heavy-handed methods could prove tiresome unless one truly prepared for war. Eisenhower could do so because of his military reputation. Once Newsweek referred to Gerald Ford as “Ike without medals,” but those medals made a great deal of difference. Brinksmanship, madman or chronic unpredictability is a good mode of action depending on its author. Eisenhower made it work, Nixon did not and Trump, well, he is barely into his administration.