Interpreting Trump's chaotic foreign policy

MOST observers of US foreign policy-making recognise that a decision made by the White House to, say, impose sanctions on a certain government or to deploy troops to another country is an outcome of a long and exhausting process, involving many players in Washington, including the president's advisers, members of the bureaucracy, Congress, interest groups and the media.

Hence, when the process starts, usually in response to developments abroad, no clear consensus exists among administration officials who would then engage in an extended debate over the available policy options, pitting one camp of presidential advisers against the other - hawks versus doves, idealists versus realists, internationalists versus unilateralists.

Indeed, there have been many cases when a foreign policy produced major divisions in the White House and the entire administration, with rival players trying to form bureaucratic coalitions and even leaking to the press information about their proposed plans, known in Washington as "trial balloons".