the eclectic group of people donald trump is considering for his foreign-policy team tells you the president-elect has no obvious fixed world view<u+2014>at least not one washington and america<u+2019>s allies are used to seeing. the question then becomes: is that a good thing or a bad thing? mr. trump<u+2019>s newly named national-security adviser , retired lt. gen. michael flynn, for example, has stressed the need to work with russia to combat islamist extremism. meanwhile, 2012 gop presidential nominee mitt romney, under consideration to be secretary of state , once called russia <u+201c>our no. 1 geopolitical foe<u+201d> that fights for <u+201c>the world<u+2019>s worst actors.<u+201d> mr. trump has said repeatedly that the war in iraq was an enormous mistake, but is considering for a top job former united nations ambassador john bolton, long a staunch defender of that war. former gen. david petraeus, under consideration to be defense secretary, is a lifelong national-security professional who was appointed head of the central intelligence agency by president barack obama. former new york city mayor rudolph giuliani, under consideration for secretary of state, has less experience and fewer well-known views on foreign policy, and has been among the obama administration<u+2019>s harshest critics. all told, it is an unconventional mix of trump loyalists and those who previously steered away from the trump bandwagon. it includes some close to the foreign-policy establishment and some who leave that same establishment aghast. there are, to be sure, a couple of common themes. the group has a heavy mix of former military men. gen. james mattis, a retired marine and former top commander of forces in the middle east, is a leading contender to be secretary of defense . the group also leans toward those, like gen. flynn and rep. mike pompeo, nominated to run the cia, who have advocated a harsher approach to iran and to battling islamist extremism. it<u+2019>s hard to know at this point, of course, which of these candidates are really serious, and which might just be head fakes, publicly discussed to flatter them or their supporters but not real contenders. it<u+2019>s also possible that president trump, like president obama, may make the white house the center of national-security decisions, diminishing the importance of officials elsewhere in the system. still, what<u+2019>s striking about those in the mix is the range of styles, views and experiences<u+2014>and the lack of a common approach to the world and its many threats. that could suggest a president-elect who himself lacks a coherent vision. and that, in turn, could sow the seeds for feuding and backbiting by dissimilar advisers who try to fill the void. <u+201c>this team could easily be the most divided and disorganized in 40 years,<u+201d> says stephen sestanovich, a professor at columbia university who held top national-security jobs for presidents of both parties. <u+201c>the organizational and policy disputes of the early carter, early reagan and early clinton administrations were tame by comparison.<u+201d> it<u+2019>s also possible, though, that the mix<u+00a0>shows mr. trump will be the ultimate foreign-policy pragmatist, unshackled by any particular ideology and free to ignore partisan positions and arguments. that view is bolstered by the fact that, as a candidate, mr. trump never presented a fully formed world view. he stuck consistently to a few firmly held views<u+2014>renegotiating existing trade deals, building a wall to stop illegal immigration and adopting a friendlier attitude toward russia<u+2014>but was much more vague on items such as what to do about syrian president bashar al-assad. candidate trump was an america-first nationalist without explaining in much detail what that means for american alliances. that leaves few guideposts, and the result is a lot of anxiety and guesswork around the globe. but it<u+2019>s also an approach that now leaves him maximum flexibility in forming a team. the ultimate test of this trump pragmatism may lie in his relations with russian president vladimir putin. in a postelection interview with the wall street journal, mr. trump said he had received a <u+201c>beautiful<u+201d> letter from mr. putin , and has made it clear that he wants to work with rather than against the russian leader, especially in fighting islamic state. but mr. trump isn<u+2019>t the first new president who thought he could make common cause with the russian strongman. president george w. bush said he looked mr. putin in the eye and got a <u+201c>sense of his soul,<u+201d> only to see him expand his control over russian media and business and crack down on nearby georgia. president obama<u+2019>s team thought it could <u+201c>reset<u+201d> relations with russia but has been left with the russian seizure of crimea and intimidation of ukraine. the cautionary note for mr. trump and his new team, whatever its composition, is obvious: be prepared for disappointment when dealing with vladimir putin. write to gerald f. seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
is donald trump<u+2019>s flexible world view a minus or a plus?  - wsj
gerald f. seib