Is a “Manchurian Candidate” Guiding Our Defense? |
Photo by Rafiee Artist
A Manchurian Candidate, as initially defined in Richard Condon’s 1959 novel and the 1966 movie, is a nation’s leader controlled by that country’s enemy. These works of fiction played on the fear of a Communist takeover of America by Russia or China, a conspiracy worthy of being promoted by QAnon.
However, over time, the term has evolved to describe a leader who unwittingly or carelessly serves the interests of a foreign power in ways that harm his country’s interests. Today, critics view President Donald Trump’s policies in that light.
In fairness, every past president has made policy choices that, in hindsight, did not benefit America and may have even harmed it. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between making poor judgments and adopting positions that align with a central orientation that undermines our strength.
If a foreign power sought to undermine another country’s ability to counter its global influence, it would aim to reduce that country’s capacity to protect its interests beyond its borders. Recently, Foreign Affairs published two articles examining how President Donald Trump’s foreign policies impede our defense by embracing isolationist and anti-globalist beliefs, to the benefit of China and Russia’s expansionist agendas.
Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote The Price of American Retreat. McConnell represents traditional conservative positions, rejecting isolationism and supporting a strong global military presence. Professors Alexander Cooley from Barnard College and Daniel Nexon from Georgetown University wrote Trump’s Antiliberal Order. They criticize Trump’s nationalist “America first” foreign policy for undercutting America’s advantage in foreign affairs. Although neither article hints at Trump being manipulated by a foreign power, they both recognize and detail how his approach works to the benefit of Russia and China.
McConnell begins his position by attacking past Democratic Presidents. That’s a safe place for any Republican to start, before criticizing the current leader of the Republican Party. He blames President Joe Biden’s administration for trying to manage foreign threats through engagement and accommodation. It only showed a weak America and whetted their appetite for greater hegemony.
He roasts President Barack Obama for failing to back up his foreign policy without sufficient investments in U.S. military power. He implies that, lacking a strong interventionist military, Biden could not enforce his own “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Although McConnell does not mention that Trump has failed to inform Russian President Vladimir Putin of any red line to cross for Russia to stop killing civilians in Ukraine.
McConnell also notes Obama’s tepid response to the 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Obama initially responded with only minor sanctions targeting Russian individuals, state banks, and a handful of companies. However, by 2016, Obama had provided Ukraine with $600 million in security aid. Additionally, he pushed through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provided U.S. military equipment and training to help defend Ukraine. So, Obama was slow in responding to Russian aggression and leaned on sanctions, but he did aid Ukraine’s resistance to the invasion.
Contrary to Obama’s orientation, the first Trump administration was more interventionist. He engaged the military in attacking........