Redundancy & Predictability …

Throughout American history, presidential administrations have occasionally advocated for prominent foreign policy doctrines.

• James Monroe (an original Democratic-Republican Party member by the way) had his Monroe Doctrine, which demanded that nations in the Americas are sovereign and not to be messed with if he could help it

• Teddy Roosevelt believed that nations in the Western Hemisphere were the sovereign players

• Harry S Truman advocated for the “walk softly but carry a big stick” attitude that promoted containment

• The Ronald Reagan Doctrine called “verify, verify again, and re-verify.”

• The Bill Clinton Doctrine focused on preferred intervention

• The Barack Obama Doctrine selectively applied without necessary explanation

• The Trump Doctrine was undefined, unclarified, and confusing, which is why the world was such a mess during his tenure. Forgive the bluntness.

• And the Biden Doctrine is not any less confusing. Just look at the deadly Afghanistan fiasco for evidence.

America has reached the point where it needs a new foreign policy doctrine that is easy to understand, simple to comply with, and clear to communicate.

The doctrine we advocate is called the Three Trinity doctrine.

It is neither too religious nor absurdly redundant when you get down to it.

Over time, United States foreign policy has taken many forms, with sometimes confusing results. James Monroe had the Monroe Doctrine, which held that nations in the Americas should be sovereign and not colonized by Europeans in particular.

Teddy Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine to apply to the Western Hemisphere and was often characterized as speaking softly but carrying a big stick.

The Truman Doctrine honored containment, as did John F. Kennedy.

Ronald Reagan’s Doctrine was decidedly anti-communist.

Bill Clinton preferred intervention where possible.

George Bush 43 used a “Preemptive” Doctrine to accomplish his foreign policy objectives, mainly after the 9/11 attacks.

Barack Obama had no uniquely identified doctrine presuming that each country should be addressed independently, which was needlessly controversial.

So, as a result, we believe that U.S. foreign policy needs a new doctrine to be more impactful and able to address challenges posed by problematic regimes around the world unambiguously.

If that foreign policy is somewhat redundant, that’s okay with us, too. Redundancy saved lives in the space program, profits in business, and reputations in law. It was a good thing.

To be so bold, we advocate for a Three Trinity Doctrine to manage U.S. foreign policy in the years ahead.  A policy that, in our opinion, will provide obvious and concise responses from the United States under certain circumstances.

The objective of this proposed doctrine is neither aggressive, unilateral, nor even reactive, or overtly interventional.  It is not passive or complacent, either.  It is proactive and does not reward appeasement.  To the contrary, this doctrine is determined, mission-driven, and designed to protect the interests of the United States, its citizens, and its allies at the point of challenge, even if that effort might be redundant.

In some ways, we might even call this policy the “If, then Doctrine.”

In the “If, then Doctrine,” we propose three distinct levels of engagement.

Three specific broad threat levels exist as determined by U.S. foreign policy experts.

A direct three exists where a “clear and present danger” to the United States of America has been identified.

An allied threat exists where one of America’s formal allies’ interests are measurably in jeopardy.

A case threat exists when a nation’s state interests are challenged in a manner that the United States believes will be detrimental to its interests in the long term.

These are what we will call level-one threats.

Level two threats exist where specific regional or nation-state foreign policy challenges must be addressed as expeditiously as possible from the United States perspective.

The Middle East and North Africa, where radical Islam, for example, has made progress in capturing territory in Syria and Iraq, in particular, not to mention the continued threat posed by Al-Qaeda and ISIL.  Russia and its expansionist tendencies in Ukraine and elsewhere will be included.  China, in particular, has pushed for economic dominance and has opposed multilateral peacekeeping initiatives.

And then, there are level three threats.  These require programmatic responses that the United States and its allies have available to promote through targeted change through foreign policy initiatives.

The first is a military response that might reinforce right when economic and diplomatic measures have failed or are deemed failing.

Then, there is an economic response, where sanctions, restrictions, and other financial tools can foster greater collaboration and cooperation from challenging regimes.

Finally, there is a diplomatic response in which United States foreign policy officers believe that negotiation can accomplish desired outcomes or that progress is being made in that direction where disagreement or competing objectives exist.

To illustrate the Three Trinity Doctrine, consider, if you will, the following illustration: