America's greatest military theorist, the late Col. John Boyd, USAF, wrote that war is fought on three levels, the physical, the mental, and the moral. The physical is the least powerful level and the moral is the most powerful, with the mental level in between. The U.S. military's refusal to understand this is a principal reason why we lose wars. 

Boyd argued that these three levels appear in many kinds of conflicts, not just shooting wars. In my view, they feature strongly in politics. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump is defeating himself at the moral level, with potentially dire consequences for his party and for his own place in history. 

Trump’s first self-inflicted wound on the moral level is abandoning his base on foreign policy. Millions of Americans voted for him in part because he promised to end our meddling in other countries’ internal affairs. His own National Security Strategy says we are not going to do that anymore. So why are we now to “run” Venezuela, take some sort of sovereignty over Greenland, and possibly attack Iran in support of protests that now seem to be over? That is not what we voted for, Mr. President. 

The threat to invade Greenland was particularly ham-handed on the moral level. The United States, with the biggest military in the world, was to attack little Denmark, which is responsible for Greenland’s defense? Unless it has a secret alliance with Grand Fenwick, Denmark would have no chance. In all the years the story of David and Goliath has been told, how many people have identified with Goliath? 

An optimist—I’m not one—might see the shadow of a strategy behind threatening war with Denmark. By forcing European NATO members to side with Denmark against the U.S., to the point of sending troops to Greenland, Trump took a long step toward making Europe responsible for its own defense. The Europeans must now confront the need for what Charles de Gaulle called a defence a tout azimuts. Europe taking responsibility 

for its own defense would lift a large burden off the United States. While the thought of America being so delightfully Machiavellian is a happy one, it probably gives too much credit where credit isn’t due. 

The president’s worst self-inflicted wound on the moral level, like Greenland, is ICE. Most people are happy he closed the southern border (liberals said it couldn’t be done). They support expelling illegal immigrants with criminal records. But they do not like it when ICE grabs immigrants who support themselves and are long-time, established, contributing members of their communities. 

Most people, including Trump voters, are also repelled by the way ICE looks and operates. In a rag-bag collection of bits of uniforms and civilian clothes, employing maximum violence, ICE comes across as underdressed storm troopers. In this respect, ICE represents a long-term movement toward militarizing the police. Cops love to militarize. They like the look, the gear, the toys, and the swagger. But militarized police push away the citizens they are supposed to protect. Effective policing requires the opposite: anchoring police in their community. In policing, appearance counts. 

For 33 years I lived in Alexandria, Virginia, which celebrates Washington’s birthday with a splendid parade. One year, standing on the sidelines, I saw the Alexandria police SWAT team coming, in all their body armor and battle dress, clustered around an armored car. They were throwing candy, not flash-bangs, but you could nonetheless see the crowd recoil as they passed. 

Conversely, I found myself in Portland, Maine, one July Fourth. As the twilight drew on, I joined a mass of townspeople walking to a headland where they could see the fireworks out over the water. The police were present on foot, walking two-by-two in their dress uniforms. They added to the festive sense of the evening instead of being an alienating presence. 

The Trump administration needs to pull ICE back and recast it so it looks and acts the way Americans expect of police. More, the president and his advisors need to keep the power of the moral level of conflict in front of their eyes in every action they plan. 

I know the president often goes off-script; that is what makes him authentic to millions of Americans. But Trump does not want to diminish his own standing. One simple thought—“How will this play on the moral level?”—could bring an end to his self-inflicted defeats. In other words, Mr. President, your problem is mostly not what you do but how you do it. 

That brings me back to where we started, with the president focusing on foreign affairs. That is a problem in what he is doing. Can the White House not see that news of the president’s doings abroad are camouflaging the many good things he is doing here at home? Most people only see the front page of the newspaper, and his actions overseas push his domestic initiatives to the back. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Where would the president and his party stand in the polls if the headlines were that he is opening the U.S. market to Japanese kei cars, which means we will be able to buy a new (small) car for $12,000? Out here in flyover-land we're celebrating his order banning big companies from buying up homes for rental property. I get at least one call each week from companies wanting to buy my house; most of the voices on the other end are Chinese. Further on the housing affordability problem: what if he put the full resources of federal housing efforts behind the Tiny House movement, or demanded cities relegalize boarding houses, which would create a housing option between an expensive apartment and living on the street? When my mother worked in 

Washington in the 1930s, she lived in boarding houses, as did many people just starting out. A return of the boarding house would also allow city-dwellers to turn their homes into money-makers. 

Actions such as these play well on the moral level, and they also tell Americans that their president is focused on them and their problems, not the latest threat from Graustark or a bit of tinsel awarded by a bunch of lefties. When you look in the mirror, Mr. President, you don't want to see someone in cap-and-bells.