Aggression Isn't Strength

The public has not been enthused by Trump’s many illegal attacks overseas.

Jeffrey Friedman considers the possible political effects of Trump’s interventionism:

Interventions that make U.S. presidents look strong tend to boost an administration’s domestic approval—even in cases in which voters doubt the value of those actions on their merits. By contrast, when military interventions make the White House look weak and reckless, they tend to hurt. That means operations that are effective, relatively brief, and technically impressive tend to be political assets, whereas operations that drag on and incur costs without realizing key objectives become hindrances.

The public has not been enthused by Trump’s many illegal attacks overseas. Most Americans say that he has “gone too far” in his use of the military abroad, and most disapprove of his foreign policy overall. Each intervention by itself might not cost him that much politically, but the frequency of the attacks and the number of different targets have soured most of the country on his foreign policy.

There appears to be a real political cost at home when the would-be “peacemaker” spends so much time in the first year back in office bombing and killing people around the world. In Trump’s case, his interventions are aggressive and unjustified, so even when they “succeed” they don’t make him look strong. Aggression isn’t strength, and most people can see that.