Bull in a china shop

In the short run, Trump is winning.

"What could go wrong?"

This could turn out very badly for our children.

Shake things up

Democrats, foreign policy experts, military leaders, academics, the media, and nearly everyone whose careers have been built around foreign policy are appalled by Trump's seat of the pants diplomacy. 

A big segment of the American public likes what Trump is doing. 

Trump is young Alexander, re-thinking the rules, cutting through the Gordian Knot. Trump is standing up for America. Pay up! Do more! It dovetails with his position on trade. Stop cheating! And it dovetails with a populist anti-intellectual sentiment. It's simple common sense. Just do it!

He said he will know whether he can trust Kim Jong-Un in five seconds. Trump seems confident of his own gut instincts.

Nations make policy choices that seem unimportant at the time, but with huge consequences twenty years later.

Tax the colonies. Seemed like a sensible idea. 

Example: Britain decides to tax its colonies after pushing out the French from1754-1763. Britain notes it was costly to keep an army in North America and figures that its colonies should start paying for their own defense. Let's impose some sensible taxes, so they can pay their own way. It was a popular idea in Parliament. Simultaneously, with the French gone and the Indians having been pushed west the British colonies felt less dependent on the British. Result: twenty years of discord, leading to declaration of independence by the colonies in 1776. 

Thirteen years.

Example: Germany contests Britain's naval superiority, 1890. Germany, under the leadership of an impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm and bold Admiral Tirpitz, began a navy build up to rival that of Britain, a friendly country they admired. It was a source of pride in Germany and popular with the public. Britain responded by tilting away from Germany toward stronger alliances with France and Russia to counter what they considered a mortal threat. By 1914 the set of alliances drew Britain, France and Russia into war with Germany following a minor incident in the Balkans.

Twenty four years.

 Impetuous. Make Germany proud

Example: Britain ends the alliance with Japan in 1923. The alliance had assured the mutual interests of Britain and Japan in the western Pacific, keeping Russia in check and protecting Japanese sea routes to oil in SE Asia. Britain chose US interests in the Pacific over Japan's. Japan realized it was now at mortal risk to US threats. They began a rapid navy arms race with the US, culminating in Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.

Nineteen years.

Example: The US analogizes the lesson of Chamberlain and Munich in 1938 to create a postwar policy of "containment" of communism. The containment policy decision blinded the US to the idea that faltering government of South Vietnam was a remnant of French colonialism, and it was losing a war of national liberation, not communist expansion. By 1961 the US military recommended 200,000 troops be sent there to fight an unwinnable war that was contrary to US interests and was condemned by the entire world including our closest allies.

Twenty three years.

There is a reason why Departments of State, military leaders, and foreign policy experts tread carefully. There are long range consequences to decisions.

Trump is making them boldly and quickly. 

What could go wrong? 

The US exited the Trans Pacific Partnership in trade. China replaces the US as the key player setting the rules for multilateral trade in the Pacific.

The US exited the Paris Climate Accords, signaling that the US considers environmental leadership unnecessary to our foreign policy and counter to our interests.

The US introduces tariffs on all of our trading partners. Each responds with tariffs of their own. Trump: "Trade wars are easy to win".

The US exited from the UN Human Rights Council, signaling the US does not consider "human rights" to be a key driver of American relations to other countries.

One thing causes another, then another

The US ties itself closer to Israel, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, accepting the Israeli policy on settlements and the future of Palestine.

The US criticizes NATO, praises the UK withdrawal from the European Union. and praises national identity over European multilateralism. 

The US praises authoritarian leadership in Russia, Turkey, China, and the Philippines while criticizing as weak democratic parliamentary leaders in Canada, the UK, France, and Germany.

Some of these changes might work out well. Or not. We may not know for twenty years. 

History has recorded the consequences in the aftermath of impetuous national leadership, authoritarian leadership, and short-sighted policy making to meet the political needs of the present.  It is not good.