No, the hard-working staff of Spoiler Alerts is interested in whether anything can be gleaned from the #AHCAfail to apply to Trump’s foreign policy. As many health-care wonks pointed out (see Philip Klein for a good example), the contrast between President Barack Obama and Trump on health care was stark. Obama worked on his health-care legislation for 13 months, maintained close coordination with House and Senate leaders, and cajoled his caucus when necessary. Trump tried for 17 days, “left everything on the field,” said White House press secretary Sean Spicer, and then told The Washington Post’s Robert Costa that “in a way, I’m glad I got it out of the way.”

The obvious implication is that Trump will fold as soon as anything gets hard. And, sure enough, as soon as the health-care bill went down, a lot of pundits thought the AHCA offered some disturbing foreign policy lessons. Consider Outside the Beltway’s Doug Mataconis:

AD

AD

Speaking about the Presidency, Harry Truman once said that “the buck stops here.” Yesterday, Donald Trump pointed at House Democrats, who played no role in the failure of the reform effort at all, and said ‘the buck stops with them.’ That’s not leadership, it’s childish finger pointing, and it does not bode well for Trump’s ability to lead when it comes to the rest of his agenda or, heaven forbid, when it comes to what seems like an inevitable foreign policy crisis at some point in the next four to eight years.

And then there are the tweets:

Now I confess that as someone who has almost no confidence in either Trump or his secretary of state, I want to pile on with this kind of parallelism. The thing is, I’m not sure it’s the logically consistent move.

It is worth remembering that many of these people made the argument that Obama’s decision to not bomb Syria in September 2013 would not undercut U.S. credibility in other crises because that’s not how reputation works in international negotiations. This is subject to considerable debate, but most people who supported Obama’s move to accept the chemical weapons deal argued that countries do not have a singular reputation for credibility or resolve. It seems weird to argue now that Trump’s failure to woo Republicans in Congress proves he won’t have the stamina to negotiate crises.

AD

AD

Here are the differences that come to mind when one considers how a foreign policy crisis will differ from AHCA:

Congress will not be all that involved. Trump has some competent members on his national security team (H.R. McMaster, Jim Mattis). The military tends to obey the commander in chief in ways that Congress does not.

It is also worth remembering that many foreign policy watchers have been more concern about Trump’s inability to back down rather than his readiness to do so. The president has considerable autonomy on foreign policy matters. In the Middle East, there are questions about whether Trump has loosened the rules of engagement in Iraq and Syria. And now there are reports that the Trump administration is considering widening its role in the Yemen conflict as well.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Philip Gordon seems far more afraid of an intransigent Trump than one who cuts and runs:

AD

Negotiations sometimes fail, and adversaries are themselves often brazen and unpredictable. After all, Nixon’s madman theory — designed to force the North Vietnamese to compromise — did not work. Moreover, putting the theory into practice requires the capacity to act judiciously at the appropriate moment, something that Trump, as president, has yet to demonstrate. And whereas a failed business deal allows both parties to walk away unscathed if disappointed, a failed diplomatic gambit can lead to political instability, costly trade disputes, the proliferation of dangerous weapons, or even war.

So no, I don’t think the failure of AHCA will convince foreign leaders that Trump is a paper tiger. The problem is, there are plenty of other things that Trump has done in foreign affairs to convince them of that already.

AD

I warned people about this in November: Words matter in foreign policy, and Trump doesn’t really understand how to use his words. In making grandiose threats and then not following through, he is becoming more predictable and less credible. That’s a bad combination during a foreign policy crisis.

To be fair, the pundits cited above are correct to wonder whether Trump’s style and decision-making process will undercut his ability to handle a crisis. All of the health-care postmortems suggest that he clearly has little grasp on policy. There are similar stories to tell about team Trump’s weak grasp on trade policy and alliance politics.