Smart Ideas: Obama’s Foreign Policy, Sexual Assault, and the Nuclear Trigger

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Add to Briefcase
Nov. 9, 2016, 8 p.m.

Can Obama save his foreign policy?

Dan De Luce, writ­ing for For­eign Policy

While much of Amer­ica pro­cesses the af­ter­math of one of the greatest elect­or­al shock­ers in Amer­ic­an his­tory, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion will hurry “to safe­guard his sig­na­ture for­eign-policy ini­ti­at­ives in his fi­nal months in of­fice.” But really, how much can Obama pro­tect? Throughout his cam­paign, Don­ald Trump vowed to undo nearly every sub­stan­tial for­eign policy achieve­ment Obama en­gin­eered dur­ing his eight years in of­fice, from the Ir­an nuc­le­ar deal to a ban on tor­ture. “Im­mig­ra­tion ad­voc­ates im­me­di­ately called on Obama to freeze all de­port­a­tions,” fear­ing that Trump will fol­low through on his cam­paign prom­ise to cre­ate a de­port­a­tion force. Which prom­ises Trump fol­lows through on re­mains to be seen, but his pro­posed policies stand to po­ten­tially shift the in­ter­na­tion­al or­der. He has vowed to “jet­tis­on trade deals in Europe and the Pa­cific” while seek­ing to re­build a re­la­tion­ship with Rus­sia, to end bad trade deals, and la­bel China a cur­rency ma­nip­u­lat­or. What comes next is any­body’s guess, but Obama will do his best to lim­it the dam­age.

"Hair trigger" posture on nukes is unnecessary

Peter Huessy, writ­ing for Real­ClearDe­fense

Don­ald Trump’s vic­tory will only boost wor­ries about his fin­ger on the pro­ver­bi­al nuc­le­ar trig­ger. But con­cerns that he “would have to quickly launch nuc­le­ar-armed mis­siles” in a crisis, in or­der to main­tain our strike cap­ab­il­it­ies, “are dead wrong. … The prompt launch of our nuc­le­ar mis­siles is not re­quired nor is it U.S. policy. There is also no U.S. policy to launch our mis­siles upon re­ceipt of com­puter warn­ing or even re­ceipt of a con­firm­a­tion of an at­tack.” First off, “re­tali­ation is not our only op­tion.” We cur­rently pos­sess lim­ited mis­sile de­fense cap­ab­il­it­ies on the West Coast, and we’re build­ing more in East­ern Europe. Secondly, “the design of our Tri­ad also means an en­emy at­tack on our sub­mar­ine, bomber, and ICBM as­sets are im­possible to ex­ecute in a way that would dis­arm the United States.” Con­sequently, there would be no need for a hasty nuc­le­ar re­sponse.

Will we have a real conversation around sexual assault?

Michelle Dean, writ­ing for The New Re­pub­lic

The op­tions were Don­ald Trump or Hil­lary Clin­ton, but with Hil­lary came Bill. Fol­low­ing the re­lease of the Ac­cess Hol­ly­wood tape in which Trump ad­mit­ted to sexu­al as­sault, one thing be­came clear: “Whichever can­did­ate won, a man ac­cused of some form of sexu­al mis­con­duct would, in one ca­pa­city or an­oth­er, oc­cupy the White House for the next four years.” Fol­low­ing the re­lease of the tape, nu­mer­ous wo­men came for­ward and ac­cused Trump of sexu­al as­sault, and in a unique turn of events, the me­dia treated Trump’s ac­cusers as cred­ible. Un­for­tu­nately, Demo­crats shied away from the ac­cus­a­tions against Bill Clin­ton “in large part be­cause lib­er­als did not want to risk tip­ping the elect­or­al math in Trump’s fa­vor.” For a few weeks, it seemed like Amer­ica might soon have an hon­est dis­cus­sion around “power, gender, and sexu­al as­sault,” but now it’s not so clear. In­stead, “we will con­grat­u­late ourselves on a dis­cus­sion about sexu­al as­sault that we didn’t ac­tu­ally have.”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.