Trump and Obama: A Comparison of Goals, Strategies and Tactics

Trump and Obama: A Comparison of Goals, Strategies and Tactics

Feature Posts, Military, News, Politics

While campaigning for president, Donald Trump was severely critical of Barrack Obama’s foreign policy. He drew particular attention to his predecessor’s preference for announcing to the world his military strategies. Obama’s decision to move troops into Mosul and announce it publicly weeks in advance was a particular sore spot with Trump. In one debate after another Trump warned that if he were elected President he would not be foolish enough to tell his enemies his military strategies, lest he give them an opportunity to take countermeasures. The heartburn many Trump supports are feeling right now over the Syrian missile strike is due to the different ways in which Obama and Trump publicly discuss their use of the military. This article will explain how different approaches to discussing foreign policy can shape public perception and create concerns.

It will help to have a basic understanding of the different types of military actions, which can be roughly divided into three categories: goals, strategies, and tactics. Goals are the things we hope to accomplish. Strategies are the plans or blueprints we devise to achieve our goals. Tactics are the specific tasks we undertake to support a goal. A company of soldiers may be sent to a village to remove terrorists. This is a goal. Once a goal is established, the next step is deciding how it’s going to be accomplished. When we discuss how something is going to be done we’re talking about strategies and tactics.

A strategy for soldiers trying to eliminate terrorists from a village might involve clearing buildings. A tactic would be to use teams of four men who go from building to building conducting a physical search. That’s one strategy but it’s not the only one available. A different strategy would be to kill all the occupants of the village. A tactic to accomplish that would be aerial bombing. There are different tactics and strategies that can be employed to accomplish any goal.

President Obama spoke publicly about where he was going to deploy his troops. Troop placement is a strategy. He discussed what his troops were going to do. Troop activity is a tactic. He didn’t discuss radical Islamic terrorism or its removal. To do so would define a goal and he wasn’t interested in revealing his goals. He chose instead to reveal his strategies and tactics. What we see with Donald Trump is the exact opposite. Trump has said repeatedly that his main foreign policy goal is the elimination of radical Islamic terrorism. But when pressed to reveal his strategies and tactics, he’s remained silent. It’s only after a particular tactic has been used that we learn how he plans to accomplish his goals.

Public trust is more influenced by strategies and tactics than goals. A new foreign policy goal may go unnoticed by the media. A missile launch or the deployment of a carrier group will dominate the news headlines. It’s easy to trust a president when they tell you what they’re going to do, tactically or strategically. And Obama influenced public opinion regularly by showcasing strategies and tactics.

Trump hasn’t told us what he plans to do, strategically or tactically in the Middle East. He’s chosen only to discuss his goals. He’s openly criticized regime change as a foreign policy goal. That’s what he plans not to do. The main goal he’s endorsed is the elimination of ISIS. Everything he does then, strategically and tactically, will support that goal—even though it may seem as if it supports a different one.

The fact that Trump prefers to conceal his strategies and tactics has created fear among people who need to trust him. But it shouldn’t. Although public perception is shaped more by strategies and tactics, goals are far more important. Trump’s goals have been clearly defined. They’re reasonable. Eliminating ISIS is a goal that no sensible person would question.

Some have backed Trump’s decision to send missiles into Syria not because they approve of his tactics, but because they understand and agree with his goal. Others who have previously criticized him are backing him because they mistakenly think he’s supporting a goal that he does not. (Their support will only last until they realize their miscalculation.)

His former supporters who have turned critical suspect that his tactics are supporting a goal they don’t approve of. I believe those fears are unfounded. If we know anything about Trump, we know what his goals are. He’s been telling us about them for decades. To suddenly change them would be out of character. We need to learn how to trust a President who only reveals his goals and not his strategies or tactics.

I will admit, it’s possible that Trump may, in fact, be targeting the Assad regime for change. But if that is the case, we must then ask if it’s a change of policy or an isolated incident. If it’s an isolated incident, Trump is still endorsing the goals he was elected on. If, as some fear, regime change has become his new policy, then we have reason to be concerned. But at this point, we have no way of knowing if that’s true.

David Hayes

Paramedic / Author / Citizen Journalist/Retired Medic

60 Tomahawk Missiles & a 1,000 Questions

60 Tomahawk Missiles & a 1,000 Questions

Feature Posts, Military, News, Politics

Politicians, per se, are not a complicated bunch. Oh, sure, they fancy themselves worldly and mysterious guardians of democracy; but they’re easier to read than my daughter’s edition of “Everybody Poops” and the commonalities don’t end there.

Donald J. Trump is no politician. That’s precisely why he confounds the media and Congress, alike. He’s not a man given to structured policy schematics, abbreviated session calendars or choreographed PowerPoint presentations. He has an objective, and every day that objective isn’t reached is a day that must produce tangible momentum towards reaching it the next day. Everything we do know about the man, is outweighed only by what we don’t know.

Normalizing the abnormal seems to be the order of the day; so why be surprised we have a president who will fire off 60 tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base unannounced on a Thursday evening…after dinner with the Chinese President…from his beach resort residence? Wait, what? Yeah, that’ll grab your attention if you’re a low information voter. You must’ve thought Trump would be buried in a White House bunker calling out coordinates. That’s not Donald Trump and that’s not how he handles business.

President Trump leaving Press Conference about Syrian Airstrike.

I’m not sure who was more surprised when the missiles landed, Assad or President Xi, who was probably sipping on an umbrella drink poolside. Rumor has it, Xi told an aid, “better call that fat ass in Pyongyang and tell him to find a deep hole and stay there.”  This is called the “Trump Effect.” We’ve seen it in business and in the campaign, now the world wonders if they just got a glimpse of Ronald Reagan’s ghost. The last thing Putin needs in the White House is another cowboy. One more willing to bomb you to oblivion, than put boots on the ground.

When I put my ear to the Internet last night, I heard a lot of nervous talk about regime change and war with Russia. Seems we have let the last 25 years skew our vision of US military command and competence. For that, who can blame you? But if you’re waiting for Putin to launch a war against the most powerful country on earth, then take your vitamins and get plenty of exercise, because it’ll be a while.

You see, Russia’s first action after the air base was destroyed, was to go running to the UN. Really? Actually, yeah, it’s all they can do. They will get entrenched and ready to fight off a UN Resolution from the Security Council condemning the chemical weapons attack. Who actually ordered the attack (Assad, Iran, Rogue CIA) doesn’t really matter. It happened and the world saw it happen. Russia knows it is in a bad spot, and that Assad lost all perception of inevitability he had just 72 hours ago to retain power. Fishy timing? Sure, but that doesn’t change a thing.

Trump had a unanimous National Security Counsel for this strike, and an overwhelming number of allies in support. Russia clearly knew this, or something like it, was going to happen. They will stand their ground, but not dream of going further unless we unilaterally engage in Bush/Obama style regime change. Which, we won’t. I don’t care what neocon wet dream Sen McCain has in his crusty old coconut. Ain’t happening, no way. Unless we see a Gulf War 1 type of international coalition, Trump won’t be storming Damascus anytime soon. Trust me.

New administration, new rules. If you want to believe this makes Trump a neocon and a warmonger, Godspeed to you. I’ll be damned if I’m going to ask my president to go to congress and beg for permission to hit a airfield that launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians. Sorry, Rand Paul. I could be wrong, and there could be a more to come, but I’m betting not. I’m betting on the threat of more to come being good enough. I’m betting on Donald Trump…because in reality, that bet was already made on November 8th.

Adam Gingrich

Founder of Wick Media Productions. Worked for Donald Trump's Campaign, overseeing the Pennsylvania region, Adam has been a Political Consultant for most of his adult life.