[March 5, 2026] In his article “Trump’s Way of War,” Professor Victor Davis Hanson argues that Donald Trump pioneered a “top-down” doctrine of Western warfare, emphasizing decisive outcomes while steering clear of the “forever wars” and nation-building pitfalls that plagued previous U.S. presidents.
This piece provides a summary of Hanson’s analysis of Trump’s military approach. Admittedly, I’ve been influenced by the professor’s perspectives, so I acknowledge my inherent biases. That said, Trump’s methods for neutralizing international threats—though not always popular—draw less ridicule from political leftists, as the targets typically have a long record of hostile actions against the West.
The core laws of warfare remain unchanging, but technologies, tactics, and strategies evolve, which is exactly what Hanson illuminates.
Hanson identifies several key pillars of this strategy:
- Targeting the “Culpable Apparat”: Rather than engaging in broad conflicts, Trump focuses on neutralizing the specific leadership or “catalysts” of aggression, such as Qassem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or Nicolás Maduro. This approach seeks to disrupt command and control while sparing the general population.
- Preventative Deterrence: Trump frames military action as a “reckoning” for long-overlooked crimes. By using overwhelming force against proxies (like Iran or Venezuela), he demonstrates American prowess and the weakness of their distant patrons, specifically China and Russia.
- No Boots on the Ground: A hallmark of this doctrine is the avoidance of large-scale infantry deployments. By relying on technological superiority, air power, and naval assets, Trump minimizes American casualties and the risk of humiliating occupations.
- War as a Negotiation Tool: Military strikes are treated as an extension of transactional diplomacy. Trump often offers “exit ramps” and deadlines, maintaining a willingness to “Make [the enemy] Great Again” once his specific strategic objectives are met.
- Rejection of Internationalism: Trump operates with little regard for the UN or EU, believing that results—such as dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities or removing dictators—will eventually force international critics to align with the new reality.
Ultimately, Hanson concludes that Trump’s approach is defined by American self-interest and “overkill” used as a global revelation of strength, aiming to restore deterrence without the high cost of traditional regime change.
————
Please read my books:
Of those listed here, I think that Targeting the “Culpable Apparat” to be the most important and changed from past MOs of US Presidents. They have been to eager to use nothing but military force on the ground. In this case, rather than engaging in broad conflicts, Trump focuses on neutralizing the specific leadership or “catalysts” of aggression, such as Qassem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or Nicolás Maduro. This approach seeks to disrupt command and control while sparing the general population.
I agree, good comment. 🇮🇷
This is a very interesting set of ideas that Dr. Hanson has on “Trumps way of war.” I like it. Good thinking out of the box.
EXACTLY RIGHT …. “ In his article “Trump’s Way of War,” Professor Victor Davis Hanson argues that Donald Trump pioneered a “top-down” doctrine of Western warfare, emphasizing decisive outcomes while steering clear of the “forever wars” and nation-building pitfalls that plagued previous U.S. presidents.” — Gen. Doug Satterfield. VDH is da man.
POW, NAILED IT.
Excellent points in the article, Gen. Satterfield. The strategic “way of war” may be changing, but the fundamentals remain unchanged.
DIME: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic. These are what leaders at the senior level pay attention to. Trump is obviously big on the E for Economic powers.
Victor Davis Hanson frames modern political debates through a nostalgic lens that idealizes a narrow version of Western tradition. He frequently portrays social justice movements as cultural decline rather than attempts to address long-standing inequalities in race, class, and gender. I contend that this framing dismisses structural problems—such as systemic racism or economic disparity—by reducing them to questions of cultural attitude or personal responsibility. I also argue that his work tends to amplify partisan narratives that divide Americans rather than examining the deeper institutional reforms many scholars believe are necessary. In addition, critics say his frequent media appearances blur the line between historical analysis and ideological advocacy. From this viewpoint, Hanson’s influence reflects how historical authority can be used to legitimize contemporary conservative politics rather than foster broader, more inclusive interpretations of the past. Just my thinking like I’ve been encouraged in Gen. Satterfield’s writings.
Thoughtful, but I think you blur the elements of ideology with reality.
Always great to see VDH views on major events of today.
Prof. Victor Davis Hanson always seems to come through with a concise look into what is happening, in the areana of warfare.