The following article is an editorial and does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of The Drury Mirror.

Last Monday, April 9, 2018, John Bolton became the new national security adviser to President Trump. This is a startling event that every politically competent observer of American government should find as a disturbing occurrence. Bolton is a blatantly bad choice for this position. His appointment increases the possibility of America engaging in frivolous military engagements, lessens its ability to achieve its true strategic objectives, isolates it from its allies, and taints the presidential decision-making process with unhelpful, and potentially disastrous, suggestions.

For those readers who don’t know, John Bolton is a long-time conservative political operative, civil-servant, and national security policy wonk. After getting his J.D. from Yale, he worked as a lawyer in D.C. From there, he went on to serve in President Reagan’s Justice Department, he’s written for a conservative magazine, led conservative think tanks, and worked in the President George W. Bush State Department.

None of these experiences mean he is a bad choice in-particular. On the contrary, it makes him look experienced and well-versed. While in these positions, however, he developed an extremely hawkish foreign policy ideology. He was a staunch advocate for the invasion of Iraq and still believes that it was a good idea. And he has advocated for declarations of war against North Korea and Iran. These areas are some of the most politically volatile and delicate in the world, yet he advocates for taking the most destabilizing and counter-productive steps to solve problems that occur there.

Bolton’s worldview is based on a deep skepticism of international law and on the preeminence of American sovereignty and power. He generally prefers unilateralism to multilateralism, and in a Chicago Journal of International Law article he described himself as a “convinced Americanist.” These types of paranoid views and inability to think inclusively about the world handicaps him in his ability to present good effective advice to the president.

The national security adviser position serves at the pleasure of the president and does not require senatorial approval. This was good news for Bolton, considering the last time he went up for a position requiring the approval of the senate, he could not get the confirmation. George W. Bush nominated him to become the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Even in a Republican held senate, he could not get an appointment because he was seen as too hawkish. Confirmation votes are notoriously easy to pass. The senate’s general mentality is that the president can have whoever he or she thinks is appropriate on their team. Bolton was seen as such a poor choice that even in this traditionally easy process and friendly political climate he could not get the confirmation.

Bolton’s job as the national security adviser is to over-see the National Security Council, which essentially synthesizes the policy recommendations of federal agencies on national security and foreign relations issues. The position is basically a go-between for the president and the agencies that implement the president’s policies. Bolton will be presenting the ideas and recommendations of high-level officials to Trump and then relaying Trump’s decisions to the agencies to ensure his ideas are implemented properly.

A bad choice

Bolton is a war hawk, and not just any war hawk. He is easily one of the most hawkish people in Washington today. In a New York Time 2015 op-ed article he advocated for a direct attack on Iran.

“Time is terribly short,” he wrote, “but a strike can still succeed.”

“Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

Not only is the suggestion substantively bad, but the urgency with which he deemed it necessary reveals an inability to properly calculate risk. I don’t know if we can actually quantify “terribly short,” but the next few months didn’t see any malicious Iranian nuclear detonation. In fact, in the article he insisted that:

“The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure.”

But it did and continues to do just that with the Iran nuclear deal. It also shows Bolton’s tendency to conflate security situations into poorly framed problems that could illicit improper counter measures by the Trump administration.

Another reason Bolton is a bad choice is that he is detrimental to the U.S.’s relations with its allies and those it is trying to negotiate with. By allowing someone into the White House who has openly and aggressively called for regime change, the US becomes a less credible negotiator with those diplomatically difficult countries. Will aggressive military nations be more or less willing to engage diplomatically with an administration that has cheered on their destruction?  John Bolton’s inclusion also signals to our allies that the U.S. is more unpredictable and potentially destabilizing to their region.

An innate characteristic to the position of the National Security Advisor is its closeness and influence on the president. In their 2013 edition of the book The Politics of United States Foreign Policy, Jerel Rosati and James Scott write that:

“[The NSA] is often regarded as the single most important appointment the president makes because that person normally becomes the most important policy advisor to the president and is responsible for coordinating the foreign policymaking process within the larger executive branch.”

Especially with a president who is notoriously persuadable, who the national security adviser is matters. An even more dangerous thought, developed by Richard Neustadt in 1960 book Presidential Power, is that some presidents prefer to abdicate their policy-making influence and essentially function as “clerks.” This gives high-ranking officials freer reign to develop the policy they want. Which for John Bolton would be disastrously “trigger-happy” policies with relatively less restriction.

Possible replacements

Steven J Hadley

He was the national security adviser for President George W. Bush from 2005-2009. Not only does he have actual experience in this job, but he is also an established Republican, has a more moderate foreign policy ideology than Bolton, and has not actively wounded Trump’s sensitive ego.

Nicholas Burns

Also a Bush-era administrator, he was ambassador to Greece, to NATO, and was the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 2005-2008. With institute and academic experience as well, he seems to be an apt analyzer as well. His background is more based on diplomacy which could help to moderate the Trump-lead foreign policy machine.

Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg

Kellogg’s name was originally floated for this position. Of the three-people named here, he is probably the most hawkish but still a tempered improvement over Bolton. Kellogg could be a choice for the administration to remain hawkish within the realms of sanity.

Honestly, most anyone competent in foreign policy would be a better national security adviser than Bolton. All we can do is hope that he does as little damage as possible.