US Foreign Policy 45: Mattis Doctrine or McMaster Doctrine?

Mattis and McMaster: Which one's in charge of FP?
“I’m gonna leave foreign policy to you guys, the Generals!”

It’s up to the Generals to craft a foreign policy doctrine?

Apparently, Donald Trump is poised to leave foreign policy crafting to America’s generals. Basically, this means there are plenty of questions to be thrown around. However, most of them if not all of them relate to principles, I think. Frankly, what we need is a doctrine, meaning a range of rules to play by, geopolitically. So basically, a geopolitical agenda is what a foreign policy range of rules so happens to be. Firstly, though, let us look at potential names for the foreign policy agenda of the 45th presidency.

General Mattis or General McMaster?

Frankly, there are two generals whose names are being floated around. Also, it’s easy to assume that their names will be the 45th POTUS’s agenda’s name. However, what’s obvious in flaws with my assumption here is only one can have US foreign policy names for him. As far as I am concerned, what matters to me are the principles, not which of these two is in charge. To be fair, I do recognize that it’s very important for a general to be the author of a doctrine. As someone who knows enough about General Mattis to say I respect him heavily, I’d say a “Mattis Doctrine” is in order. However, I am not sure how him and McMaster are going to jointly craft a doctrine that Trump won’t accuse either of them of ‘undermining my laws‘ over.

My Proposal for a “Mattis-McMaster Doctrine

Okay, so I thought about a set of principles that take mainly historic and military science factoids in mind. Generals Mattis and McMaster, I highly doubt either of you are reading this, but if you are, then please consider these for a foreign policy doctrine.

  1. Freedom of Trade: America’s trade policy ought to not be a matter of trade deals. Really, what I’m talking about here is ending trade barriers, cutting tariffs every year, and revoking corporatist and protectionist laws. All unilaterally, too. We ought to be opening every trade route on Earth, even if it means some US troops have to be abroad to keep trade routes open.
  2. Liberty vs Tyranny: America’s taste in friends needs to come down to just one question. Is it moral or immoral for any regime on Earth to rule its people as sacrificial animals? That way, We The People can decide based on that question which foreign societies are our friends and which ones are not.
  3. Defense of People: America’s military policy should echo the moral question above just like its taste in friends does. However, I only mean this in Right of Self-Defense context. Meaning a context where there is not a duty but rather a right to topple any tyrannical regime as long as it’s changed to a free market regime with no monopolies. Also, this is a context where the only real duty involved is to defend people against terrorism or genocide.

Closing Thoughts

I don’t expect this proposal to be taken into count, nor do I think I should expect it to. However, it is slightly possible that Mattis and/or McMaster may listen to me and to fellow Pro-Defense libertarians. Ones who happen to offer a different doctrine than what’s above and disagree with me in part on the Defense on in particular. But who knows? I’ve made it very clear to all that I don’t.