Colin Powell's Advice on Starting a (Trade) War

The former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs chairman would have insisted we answer some important questions first.

Trade wars are not wars, even if they are couched in the language of battle and escalation.? But as President-elect Donald Trump announced tariffs on America’s largest trading partners last week, the military wisdom of Colin Powell looks especially relevant in assessing the chance of “victory.”

The “Powell Doctrine” emerged as a set of questions the former Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs considered crucial to answer before sending troops in harm’s way.? Drawn from similar thinking by former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, these guidelines triggered criticism for setting the bar so high as to paralyze America from nearly any military deployment.? But ignoring these principles unquestionably contributed to disaster in Vietnam and, arguably, the “endless wars” Trump himself now denounces.

For now, Trump’s menacing talk of tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China on national security grounds have all the signs of a negotiating strategy rather than an outright assault.? For now, the measures may well be intended to “escalate to de-escalate,” as Treasury Secretary-designate Scott Bessent told the Financial Times last month.?

But Powell would surely remind Bessent that few wars are quite so neat.? The fog of battle distorts trade negotiations and fuels political emotions almost as much as actual combat.? If economic officials in Beijing, Ottawa and Mexico City might quietly offer Trump better enforcement on drugs and immigration, they can’t be seen to cave so easily.? There will be even louder retaliation threats fueled by their own domestic politics and pride.?

So, a few honest answers to Powell’s questions may be helpful before the damage mounts and the sides dig in.

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Trump’s initial volley likely focuses on a national security threat from drugs and immigration because this gives him the most leeway to impose stiff tariffs without Congressional approval.? At some point, courts may explore whether his fentanyl and border concerns rise to the level of an “emergency,” but Candidate Trump didn’t hide his views that trade reform was a defining issue for the country’s future.?

Do we have a clear and attainable objective?

If border and customs enforcement were the only problems Trump was trying to solve, there might actually be a path to success.? But one suspects the goalposts will move quickly in any negotiations to encompass structural issues like trade deficits that are primarily determined by America’s own balance of consumption and savings.

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed??

There may well be lengthy papers somewhere in the president-elect’s briefings that balance the risks with the potential rewards of confronting America’s two closest trading partners even before Inauguration Day.? There might even be analysis of how America can ultimately de-couple its economy from China’s without triggering a global recession.? These would make interesting reading.

Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?

?Here, it’s important to stipulate again that trade wars are not in themselves violent, but there are always more victims than anyone expects.

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement??

This may be the most important question of all.? What does victory look like?? During his last term in office, Trump settled for a China promise to boost its U.S. order book, but will that be enough this time?? In 2020, Trump also endorsed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, but what revisions will he demand when it comes up for formal review next year?? His main complaint about the European Union has been over imbalances in the auto trade, but he hasn’t made any specific demands, and his negotiating style suggests he may not know his own bottom line.

Have the consequences of US action been fully considered??

Again, it would be interesting to see if any analysis has weighed the potential damage to relations with neighbors, whose cooperation we need on a wide range of problems.? The looming confrontation with Europe, which will surely come any day, also carries serious risks for trans-Atlantic security cooperation.

Is the action supported by the American people??

Apparently, yes, so far, with 76,857,284 votes. ?

Do we have genuine, broad international support??

No really.? Indeed, Trump seems to relish wielding these threats unilaterally against friends and foes alike.

The first shots have been fired, but America’s trade strategists would do well to keep these military principles in mind as they weigh the risks of escalation and collateral damage.? Above all, given the mercurial focus of their new commander-in-chief, one hopes they themselves keep asking at least two questions: what do we want, and when will we stop?

?