Mike Coté
One of the major themes of the 2024 Trump presidential campaign was his focus on ending the global conflicts that had characterized the Biden administration. For Trump’s campaign, labeling Biden as a pro-war president was a serious point of distinction, as voters favorably compared the general overseas calm of the first Trump term with the chaos of the Biden years. From 2016 onward, Trump’s purported dealmaking acumen as a successful businessman has been one of his primary selling points, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. He promised to bring this skill to bear on the wars raging in Eastern Europe and the Middle East during the election, and electorally it seems to have worked. Now that Trump is back in the Oval Office, these peacemaking promises will be put to the test. Peace sounds good, but the question remains: at what cost?
Ending wars is good. It immediately saves lives and ends catastrophic destruction, allowing for some semblance of normalcy to return. But peace can be temporary, as well as counterproductive, especially if it sets the stage for further conflict in the future or gives up overwhelming concessions along the way. A bad peace that does not sufficiently deter future conflict will, over the long run, only precipitate future violence as our foes come to see us as a paper tiger, all too ready to abandon our allies for momentary political gain. It is far better to have a more drawn-out conflict that ends in a lasting peace than a shorter one that will simply resume in a few years.
No comments:
Post a Comment