Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “War and National Security”

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

No to ‘Forever Wars,’ but Yes to ‘Forever Forward Deployed’

“It’s time to end the forever war,” declared President Biden in his Apr. 14, 2021, announcement that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan.

No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave…

So when will it be the right moment to leave? …War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking.

Of course no sane American wants to fight a “forever war”—that is, an indeterminable conflict with no end in sight, only a mounting list of U.S. casualties. But the President is wrong when he argues that the only alternative to “endless war” is military retreat and withdrawal.

In fact, there is a third and much better option: forever forward deployed as a garrison force, in country, that works closely with our allies—in this case, the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan—to protect vital U.S. interests in the region.

This was the option strongly recommended to Mr. Biden by his own military advisers, as well as the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group.

A small residual force of 4,500 U.S. troops, they argued, would be enough “for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy.”

U.S. troops, after all, have been forward deployed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than half a century. True, Afghanistan is a far cry from being remotely like any of these three countries; it remains wracked by armed conflict and civil war.

Progress. Nonetheless, with American military help, Afghanistan has made tremendous strides forward—socially, politically, economically, and militarily. U.S. casualties, meanwhile, have steadily and precipitously declined. As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens reports:

Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them—not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced—became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament.

“There have been no American combat deaths in Afghanistan since two soldiers were killed and six wounded on Feb. 8, 2020, in a so-called insider attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province,” reports the Desert News.

“The U.S.,” Stephens notes “has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan since 2015. That’s heartbreaking for those affected, but tiny next to the number of troops who die in routine training accidents worldwide.

“Our main role in recent years,” he adds, “has been to provide Afghan forces with effective air power. It is not an exorbitant price to pay to avert an outright Taliban victory.”

Strategic Ramifications. And preventing the Taliban from winning matters for reasons that extend far beyond Afghanistan. It matters in China, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It matters in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran. And it matters in North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East.

“Our enemies will test us,” warns Bing West.

After Saigon fell [in the Vietnam War], Russia and Cuba supported proxy wars in Latin America and Africa, while Iranian radicals seized our embassy in Tehran.

The Biden administration will face similar provocations. Already, China is threatening Taiwan, Russia is massing troops on the Ukraine border, and Iran is increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“The theory of deterrence relies not just on the balance of forces, but also on reserves of credibility,” Stephens explains. “Leaving Afghanistan now does next to nothing to change the former while seriously depleting the latter.”

Diplomatic Leverage. The President disparages the notion “that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage.” Yet, he offers no evidence to refute this commonsensical and well-proven truth.

Instead, he blithely asserts:

We gave that argument a decade. It’s never proved effective—not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

But the failure to win in Afghanistan is a reflection of an intractable war in an antiquated tribal society; it is not an indictment of the necessary nexus between military and diplomatic power.

Recognizing that the U.S. military has failed to achieve victory in two decades of conflict and likely will never achieve victory in the classic sense does not mean that we must reject wholesale the use of military power in Afghanistan.

This is a colossal blunder and unforced error by Mr. Biden.

The President compounds his error by arguing that “our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way—U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking.”

In fact, we need to understand that a forward-deployed U.S. military presence overseas is a stabilizing force for the good and a critical component of American diplomacy.

False Choice. The bottom line: the choice between so-called endless war and abject withdrawal and retreat is a false choice. We do not have to accept either of these two badly mistaken and extreme options.

Instead, we should choose to be forever forward-deployed militarily in small but strategically significant numbers to protect our interests and put America First. The President’s failure to do so in Afghanistan jeopardizes our national security.

Feature photo credit: President Biden announces that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, courtesy of ABC News.

Placing Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus in Historical Perspective

Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan were each responsible for monumental policy failures. Yet, they emerged from these crises with their honor and integrity intact.

 

We cannot, sadly, say the same of President Trump.

To appreciate how wrong and contemptible President Trump’s lies and evasion of responsibility are re: his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus, it is helpful to review how other America presidents have responded when they erred and failed at times of national crisis.

Kennedy. Here is what President Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs debacle:

There’s an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.

I’ve said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility, because I’m the responsible officer of the government… and that is quite obvious—

But merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation.

Kennedy was not excessively self-critical, and he did not wallow in self-abasement. However, he did man up and forthrightly accept responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle.

The American people respected Kennedy for owning up to his failure, forgave him, and rallied to his side with a spectacular 70-percent-plus approval rating. The country moved on.

Carter. Here is what President Carter said after the botched Iranian hostage rescue mission aka Operation Eagle Claw:

Late yesterday, I cancelled a carefully planned operation which was underway in Iran to position our rescue team for later withdrawal of American hostages, who have been held captive there since November 4. Equipment failure in the rescue helicopters made it necessary to end the mission…

I made a decision to commence the rescue operations plans. This attempt became a necessity and a duty. The readiness of our team to undertake the rescue made it completely practicable.

Accordingly, I made the decision to set our long-developed plans into operation.

I ordered this rescue mission prepared in order to safeguard American lives, to protect America’s national interests, and to reduce the tensions in the world that have been caused among many nations as this crisis has continued.

It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own.

Carter ended up losing the 1980 presidential election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, in no small part because of the Iranian hostage debacle. However, in the aftermath of the failed hostage rescue attempt, Carter’s support did not collapse.

To the contrary: a Gallup poll conducted roughly a week later (May 1, 1980) showed Carter with a 51-36 percent lead over his Democratic primary challenger, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Carter, moreover, would go on to narrowly lose the Michigan Caucuses to Kennedy, 48-46 percent, before winning 11 of the next 12 primaries en route to capturing the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Again, the American people were quite forgiving of presidential failure. They understood that, despite whatever disagreements and doubts they had about Carter, he was nonetheless a good and decent man trying his level best to do right by them and the country.

Reagan. Here is President Reagan acknowledging to the American people that, despite his intentions to the contrary, his administration did, in fact, sell arms for hostages to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism: 

My fellow Americans, I’ve spoken to you from this historic office on many occasions and about many things. The power of the Presidency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet it doesn’t rest here; it rests in you, the American people, and in your trust.

Your trust is what gives a President his powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it’s what I want to talk to you about this evening.

For the past three months, I’ve been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking, “Well, why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced troubles or tragedies?”

Others of you, I guess, were thinking, ”What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?”

Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And, as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion.

There’s been enough of that.

I’ve paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I have had to wait, as you have, for the complete story.

Notice how Reagan emphasized presidential trust and candor, and the importance of speaking truthfully to the American people.  Notice, too, that he felt the need to apologize for not being communicative enough! (Of course, they didn’t have Twitter back then.)

Reagan explained that he had appointed a special review board to investigate what had happened, and that the board had just issued its findings. 

Let’s start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to Administration policy and to the original strategy we had in mind.

There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.

I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini Government. It’s clear from the board’s report, however, that I let my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran.

I asked so many questions about the hostages’ welfare that I didn’t ask enough about the specifics of the total Iran plan…

As I told the Tower board, I didn’t know about any diversion of funds to the contras. But as President, I cannot escape responsibility

Now what should happen when you make a mistake is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons and then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with a problem.

This in no way diminishes the importance of the other continuing investigations, but the business of our country and our people must proceed…

You know, by the time you reach my age, you’ve made plenty of mistakes, and if you’ve lived your life properly, so you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.

My fellow Americans, I have a great deal that I want to accomplish with you and for you over the next two years, and, the Lord willing, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Goodnight and God bless you.

Reagan’s Triumph. And God Bless President Reagan. He did, in fact, go on to deliver one of the greatest and most historically consequential speeches in world history: at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, June 12, 1987

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

The walls were torn down; Eastern Europe was liberated; the Soviet Union was defeated; and the Cold War was won. America, meanwhile, enjoyed continued peace and prosperity; and Reagan finished up his second term a highly popular, successful, and respected two-term president.

Now, compare that to how President Trump has handled the coronavirus. NBC News White House correspondent Geoff Bennett has compiled a timeline of Trump’s key remarks dating back to January when the coronavirus first emerged in the public consciousness:

 

To this disgraceful list we should add other damning Trump statements or admissions. NBC News reports:

Asked Friday at his press conference by NBC News’ Kristen Welker whether he should take responsibility for the failure to disseminate larger quantities of tests earlier, Trump declined.

“I don’t take responsibility at all,” he said.

Trump also responded testily to a question from another reporter about a decision made by the administration in 2018 to disband the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense — a unit sometimes referred to as the White House pandemic office.

Trump called the question “nasty” and replied, “I didn’t do it.”

“You say we did that, [but] I don’t know anything about it,” Trump said.

In addition to having insisted for weeks that he had the outbreak under control, Trump has also propagated personal beliefs about the coronavirus that contradict those of veteran health officials and experts.

Then today, Trump tweeted this bald-faced lie:

This tweet would be laughable were the matter not so serious, with tens of thousands of American lives hanging in the balance.

Again, as we have reported here at ResCon1, Trump’s China ban was the one praiseworthy decision that he made early on in this crisis. However, it was hardly a game changer, because it never was combined with rapid and comprehensive testing to prevent community spread of the virus.

Forgiveness. In any case, mistakes and errors are forgivable and can be excused. In fact, as our history shows, the American people are quite forgiving of presidents who make mistakes, acknowledge their error, and seek forgiveness.

What is unforgivable, though, is refusing to acknowledge error and then compounding the error by lying repeatedly about it. And that, unfortunately, describes the all-too-characteristic behavior of Trump. George Conway captures this character flaw well:

But responsibility? Never. Ever the blameless narcissist, Trump always insists that the buck stops wherever convenient—for him, personally.

For Trump, success always has a single father—himself. Failure has a hundred—everyone and anyone else: The media. The Democrats. The “deep state.” Disloyal staffers. Prosecutors. Judges.

Anyone who doesn’t do his bidding or sufficiently sing his praises.

And the common thread between his taking credit and shifting blame? Trump’s standbys: Lying, deceit and exaggeration. All have come into play throughout his presidency, and all now have come home to roost.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via the Los Angeles Times.

‘Endless War’ Is an Inaccurate Talking Point that Imperils Our Safety and National Security

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.