Isolationists and anti-interventionists on both the left and the right have scored a lot of political points by decrying so-called endless war. It’s a great polemical talking point. Who, after all, is for “endless war”?
The talking point resonates because the United States has been in Afghanistan for 19 years and in Iraq for almost as long. But the term “endless war” is misleading, and it obscures more than it clarifies. And, in so doing, it distorts the policy options and choices that lie before us.
The choice that we face as a nation is not between peace or “endless war.” The choice that we face is between: a) a proliferation of dangerous threats; or b) a steady and consistent military and diplomatic presence abroad that keeps those threats at bay.
No one, after all, is talking about launching another 2003-style Iraq War, another 2007-style Iraq surge, or another 2001-style “shock and awe” campaign in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter. Large-scale occupying forces are neither needed nor desired now.
That’s because we’ve learned a lot in the past two decades of ongoing military engagement. We’ve learned that a large and massive military footprint isn’t always ideal and in fact, can sometimes be counterproductive.
But we’ve also learned that small numbers of highly trained U.S. military personnel and advisers can have an extraordinarily beneficial and outsized impact.
They can seriously stiffen the spines of our friends and allies; dramatically strengthen and enhance our diplomatic and negotiating leverage; and, in general, keep a lid on things, so to speak, by containing threats that otherwise would imperil our national security and safety worldwide.
Iraq and Syria. We saw this, for instance, in Iraq and Syria, where small numbers of U.S. special forces, aerial intelligence assets, and American air power were instrumental in uprooting the Islamic State and destroying its so-called caliphate.
That’s why President Trump’s decision last fall to abruptly withdraw U.S. troops from Syria was so tragically misguided, counterproductive and dangerous: It undermined our diplomatic leverage there and gave our enemies an opening to attack our friends and allies and undermine our interests.
Trump has since redeployed some of those troops to other parts of Syria; but his oft-expressed desire to leave altogether has weakened our position and embolden our enemies.
Trump should have learned from Obama’s foolish decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq. That decision led to the Islamic State, which, in turn, forced Obama to send U.S. troops back into Iraq.
Afghanistan. Yet, here are we are again, only this time in Afghanistan. A small contingent of U.S. forces there (roughly 12,000 troops), playing a key support role, have been critical in containing a witches’ brew of the Taliban, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and assorted other Jihadists. Yet, all Trump can do is talk about withdrawing U.S. troops and leaving Afghanistan.
“Time to come home,” he said Sunday. “They want to stop. You know, they’ve been fighting a long time. They’re tough people. We’re tough people. But after 19 years, that’s a long time.”
Yes, it is a long time. You know what also hasn’t happened in a long time? An attack on the United States that was planned and executed from a terrorist base in Afghanistan. Let’s keep it that way.
But the only way we’ll continue to protect the American homeland is not by “coming home,” but rather by keeping our foot on the enemy’s throat, so to speak, through a steady and consistent forward presence overseas.
A myopic and misplaced obsession with “endless war” obscures this reality. It’s long past time that we stopped—or ended, if you will—using the term altogether. As a policy option, it is inaccurate, and it doesn’t help or clarify the U.S. foreign policy debate.