Incoherency Doesn’t Mean It Can’t Work

Photo by Dan Scavino, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Colin Clarke is a researcher at The Soufan Group. In this clip he is on the network Al Jazeera. Not exactly Steve Douce friendly for the president, but broadcast from a cooperative region with a fair amount of overlap of conservative cultures.

It’s balanced and the host gives Clarke plenty of space for analysis of how the rest of the world views the transition from Joe Biden to Donald Trump. It’s absent any misplaced alarmism or fear mongering. The whole thing can be found here.

The thing that really stood out as informative and encouraging was when he explained just because his strategy seems “incoherent” doesn’t mean it can’t work. After all, these are career diplomats in Ankara and Riyadh dealing. Comforting to consider they may know what they’re doing. The team Trump is made of government officials that were given a 4 year pause to reconsider strategy about a second administration.

This is an exceptionally rare moment for Americans. It’s only happened once before with Grover Cleveland. He even had a baby named after him the year before he lost the election. Hall of fame right-handed pitcher, Grover Cleveland Alexander. Popularity is a peculiar thing.

The technically astute team at OT helped pull some clips that show some hope akin to bipartisan understanding.

Clarke gives several well-sourced, expert-level criticisms of the White House and their chaotic and unsettling pace and tactics. He wisely warns of the perception of the global community and non-state actors being spooked by the “whiplash” of Trumpland. He covers the perceived unconstitutionality and the risk of cutting the federal pay rolls at every level.

Conceivably, in the name of fair analysis, he gives a square assessment of Trump’s luck so far. Perhaps it isn’t merely luck. Perhaps Trump knows something we don’t. Perhaps he has inside knowledge of “just how bad” Russia’s economy is at the moment due to sanctions. Perhaps…

It doesn’t appear incoherent when considering that China is watching these negotiations with Moscow and Kyiv. There is little reported on China’s view of the negotiations or Trumpland in general but with that we can make a guess that perhaps Beijing has a weaker economy than what’s gleaned from the media. That’s not a license to jump down rabbit holes but it’s a possibility to consider. Perhaps Trump is in a better position than we can tell due to the “flood the zone” tactic favored by longtime and early Trump loyalist, Steve Bannon. The “whiplash” as Clark puts it.

Next glimmer of hope is recognizing that Trump’s aggressively bombastic opening in negotiations allows him to make concessions to appear magnanimous and cooperative. There is an advantage to his transactionalism. He always sells the concession as a win for whomever he’s negotiating.

His track record is: give what is considered a ridiculous opening offer. Then through the media, the other side expresses value for what they see as too far. Trump comes around publicly in his own way and sees the other side’s point. This gives him the chance to “edge” back to reasonability, often pointing out the other side’s “good deal.”

Calculated and manipulative, perhaps incoherent? Sure. But not untested. It’s the New York Page 6 version of “country dumb.” Certain level of genius to it when examined from all angles. Incoherently, it looks like the president is a recurring character from ‘Sex and The City’ who never talks about his job. Doesn’t mean it can’t work for his administration, though.

The last clip is Clarke talking about the apparent incoherent nature of Trump and his orbit writ large. “It’s not the traditional style we are used to.”

Other writers have had observations and moments of true anxiety. It is “one of the most incoherent approaches” to foreign policy in distant memory. The last deviation that comes to mind so incoherent would be when Barack Obama chose to back the Kurdish faction of Syria. It looked like complete insanity but it has held for nearly a decade.

It seemed incoherent Trump hasn’t mentioned Syria very much since taking office for the second time when viewed through the old Iraq War lens. Those dreaded “forever wars” Trumpland has come to label any war they don’t approve of. One thing he has said repeatedly, in a way one can believe, is he wants to leave Syria, but not like Afghanistan.

That is believable because he says it the way he threatened to cut aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Of course, aid will be returned on a case by case basis and the UK will still provide Ukraine with the same level of intelligence. But that is the “edging” mentioned earlier. Those who make the case for aid look like they fight for their cause, Britain is allowed to lead by sharing US-level intelligence with Ukraine and Trump gets to tell his base how he made a great deal.

Syria and Israel, like China, are watching all this and making their own calculations. Israel is more familiar with this administration and trusts him to negotiate directly with Hamas. This allows Israel to continue to look hard and stay quiet. The place they prefer to be in their region. Through a new lens, it is coherent.

By focusing on what Syria can control and the aspirations for the transitional government in Damascus they have played their bounce well. By not engaging old patterns and lenses of expressing fealty to an Islamist group Al-Sharaa, or Jolani as Trump will certainly call him for shock, has organized his revolution to a commendable stability. Comparatively, this version of Syria has been remarkably less bloody.

To Sharaa, it’s coherent and valuable to be patient and productive in his lane. Even more coherent to express no desire to get out of said lane. This plays into Trump’s strength with his base who are the most hostile to Damascus. He can point to patience and productivity, after elections, and say “they’ve earned it.”

Just because it doesn’t make sense to voters, doesn’t mean it won’t make sense to those whom the message is meant for. There is some hope.