Last week, President Trump announced that John Bolton, the former United Nations Ambassador, would become his next National Security Adviser, replacing Gen. H.R. McMaster on April. 9. The announcement has certainly stirred controversy. The New York Times editorial board warned, for example, “Yes, John Bolton Really is that Dangerous.” But, as is usually the case with such hysterical lines of argumentation, the criticisms of Bolton are overdone. A more fair-minded assessment demonstrates that there is good reason to believe that Bolton will be a strong and effective national security adviser for Trump.
There is no doubt that Bolton will be ready for the job on day one. He has years of high-level government experience in the State Department and at the United Nations. In his time in the executive branch, he demonstrated an ability to achieve important foreign policy objectives, including shepherding the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Iran and North Korea and establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative — a multilateral effort aimed at preventing the illicit trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. He also developed a reputation as an effective bureaucratic operator.
Since leaving government, he has proven in countless op-eds, media appearances, and the publication of a book, Surrender Is Not an Option, that he understands the national security challenges facing the country as well as anyone.
He also brings important relationships to the position. One cannot succeed in the national security adviser role without a close and trusting partnership with the occupant of the Oval Office, and it appears that Bolton and Trump have really hit it off.
Moreover, as a former official in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan and a post-government career as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Fox News analyst, Bolton maintains close ties to the Republican Party. This may enable him to help repair rifts in the GOP that emerged since the election and bring experienced policy hands into the process.
With the list of above strengths, one might assume that this appointment would be widely applauded, but critics have found cause for complaint. Perhaps, most notably, they chastise Bolton as a “warmonger” for advocating the use of force if necessary to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Some have even gone so far as to claim that the mere consideration of such policy options is irresponsible for a country like the United States.
But the use of force has been an indispensable tool of international politics since the days of Thucydides. And tough talk like Bolton’s does not cause conflict, but, rather, is necessary to keep the peace. There is ample evidence that credible threats of military force deter conflict and contribute to successful diplomacy. As the Reagan and Trump mantra has it, “peace through strength.”
Moreover, there is a bipartisan consensus that the United States must keep the military option on the table for dealing with Iran and North Korea. Obama repeatedly argued that he would do whatever it takes, include use military force if necessary, to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. And before becoming Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter penned an op-ed advocating pre-emptive strikes on North Korea. Yet, for some reason, these statements did not elicit the vitriol we are witnessing today.
A final objection maintains that Bolton is not the right fit for this position because a national security adviser must dispassionately present all options to the president for decision, but Bolton’s thumb will always be on the scale in the form of his own strong judgements. (It is interesting that some levying this charge have spent the past year cheering the “adults in the room” in Trump’s Cabinet precisely for restraining Trump’s capacity to freely choose policy options.) It is true that the “honest broker” model, most closely associated with Brent Scowcroft, is one template, but it is not the only recipe for success. The other version, and the one more likely to be practiced by Bolton, is the national security adviser as strategist role modeled by Henry Kissinger — an approach which led him to be considered among the most impactful national security advisers in the postwar era.
In sum, much of the negative coverage of Bolton in recent days has been little more than overwrought and disingenuous attacks launched by political partisans. Bolton’s deep experience and pivotal relationships will serve him well in this new role and leading Republicans are justified in celebrating his appointment.
Matthew Kroenig (@Kroenig) is an associate professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy.
