This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

During the Obama presidency, the United States had trouble convincing our enemies we meant what we said — because we often didn't. President Barack Obama's red line wasn't a red line in Syria; our promises to oppose Russian aggression and occupation of Ukraine were lost on deaf ears in Moscow; Obama did not promptly provide logistical help and weapons to Ukraine; our sanctions were limited.

Likewise, the Iranians never believed Secretary of State John F. Kerry would walk away from the table by enacting new sanctions on its illegal missile tests (so they kept launching more). They assessed things correctly. No penalties followed from missile tests — or increased support for clients in Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere.

Rather than listen to what Obama said, our international foes watched what he did. As Colin Dueck noted in 2015, what they saw was a strategy of retrenchment and accommodation:

—

A strategy of retrenchment involves cutting and reducing a country's international military costs and commitments. A strategy of accommodation involves concessions toward a real or potential adversary overseas in the hope of altering their ambitions and intentions. Obama obviously believes in both retrenchment and accommodation for the United States abroad.

—

In other words, there was no will to deter foes' aggression, so foes' aggression increased in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Ukraine, etc.

President Donald Trump came into office with the promise that we would be respected in the world. While he did not say so, the concept of replacing accommodation and retrenchment with deterrence (which need not be military force in most cases) was not unreasonable nor impossible in the least. We've seen a world with reticent or non-existent U.S. leadership and it is unstable, violent and bloody. So change to a more traditional U.S. posture was long overdue.

However, since getting into office the president has been saying a great many aggressive things of concern — to our allies. The stream of ill-advised remarks has necessitated Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and both Democratic and Republican senators to race around the globe and to their telephones to assure allies the president really did not mean what he said.

Mattis went to Asia to assure allies we stood by them. He, Tillerson and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., descended on the Munich Security Conference to tell them we stand with NATO and are committed to its success. Pence had to insist that the president believes in free speech (!). Senators hastened to assure Australia we valued its friendship. Mattis had to tell Iraq we weren't there to grab its oil. Honest. Democratic senators tried to assure Mexico (and Texas) we wouldn't provoke a trade war over an ill-advised wall. Do allies believe all these voices or the president?

In short, deterrence is saying and doing things that should alarm, or at least warn, foes. Trump is saying and doing things that alarm allies. The latter approach by the way — the impulse to kick allies in the shins — was a common complaint against the Obama team.

In being forced to constantly "clarify" the president's words to allies, the Trump administration conveys just how erratic, mercurial and unreliable we are. Allies hear the mixed messages and so do foes. Moreover, the balance of tough talk to allies vs. tough talk to foes (e.g., Russia, China) is badly out of whack. When Trump talks about Russia, it is invariably positive. Aside from trade, Trump says nothing about China's territorial ambitions, cyberattacks and regional aggression.

Aside from the obvious — don't let the president talk foreign policy without a script vetted by the National Security Council, State and Defense — several things would help. First, we need actual policies, not merely sentiments. That requires an orderly process which seeks approval from Cabinet officials, the intelligence community and then sign off by the president. Then, once the president has signed off on the approaches, the administration cannot have unqualified and inappropriate political White House aides (e.g., Sebastian Gorka, Stephen Miller) popping off on TV or anywhere else in public about what the president thinks or doesn't think. Foreign policy questions go to the NSC, State or the Pentagon. Period. And finally, our words and actions have to match.

Obama's threats and expression of "deep regret" or "outrage" were not met with action; Trump's words, his senior aides are compelled to say, don't really represent U.S. policy. That's confusing at home and acts to confuse friends and foes alike. It has to end.

All this boils down to a rather simple proposition: Trump actually has a solid team of Cabinet professionals, one that can likely work together. He should let them do their jobs and not get bogged down in the tweet or the stray remark of the day. He's generating too much distraction and making unnecessary work for them with fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants comments and tweets. He certainly shouldn't let Gorka or Miller or Stephen K. Bannon muck around in a sphere they know little about.

Trump will succeed or fail politically based on domestic items such as tax and health-care reform. Those efforts are languishing right now. Better to turn his attention to those, and let his foreign policy team do what they were hired to do. Our allies will breathe a sigh of relief if he does.