Story highlights William D. Hartung: Bombings raise questions of whether a Trump doctrine is afoot

But erratic outbursts likely to do US and global security more harm than good, he says

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. The views expressed are his own.

(CNN) Two high-profile bombings in a week have sparked a debate about the direction of the Trump administration's foreign policy.

Is there a new Trump doctrine in the making, or has the President simply found a formula for distracting the public and the media from his troubles at home: from allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election to his failure at pushing through his most cherished domestic initiatives?

William D. Hartung

The first strike -- the launching of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in retaliation for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical attack on his own civilians -- drew praise from unlikely suspects. These included MSNBC's Brian Williams, who described the attack and the weapons used to carry it out as "beautiful," and CNN's Fareed Zakaria, a longtime Trump critic and foreign policy analyst, who suggested that the strike finally certified Trump's status as a real live president.

The dominant narrative was that a new sheriff was in town who was going to act forcefully when he saw a threat to US interests, in contrast with his predecessor, who was seen as feckless and indecisive. This characterization of President Barack Obama overlooks the fact that his administration dropped 12,000 bombs on Syria in 2016 alone -- hardly the actions of someone who is reluctant to use force.

For those who are impressed by military fireworks, the Trump administration's second strike, which involved hitting ISIS fighters in Afghanistan with the most powerful conventional bomb ever dropped by the United States in combat -- the Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, more popularly referred to as the "mother of all bombs" -- was even more awesome.

Read More