The Syrian regime and its Russian allies will not stop wobbling the dominoes, because it is a game played on their board. Assad and his supporters are regional powers, and unlike the United States, it is their region—to varying degrees, their vital interests—at stake. If we wobble, they will wobble back. Escalation will breed escalation, and eventually the dominoes may tip. The prudent course is to stop wobbling now, to extricate ourselves from an unnecessary and foolhardy intervention which offers America nothing to gain and much to lose.
In fact, Trump’s disdain for neoconservative policies and unending U.S. military deployments overseas comes very close to Macron’s own crusade against neoconservatism. Indeed, when most of the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle last year were asked to discuss their strategies in relation to Syria, they largely promoted the same combination of destroying ISIS and removing the Syrian government at the same time.
At approximately 10 a.m. this past Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held one of the most consequential public hearings that the panel has scheduled so far this year. The topic: “Reviewing Congressional Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.” The goal: Attempting to establish a bipartisan consensus towards the U.S. Congress reclaiming the powers of war and peace.
The American government has an obligation to keep our citizens safe. We must now recognize, however belatedly, that accomplishing that objective cannot be accomplished in Afghanistan by deploying additional U.S. combat power. Sending more troops into Afghanistan now cannot and will not make America safer. It is time to instead employ means and tactics that have a chance of success.
Trump's delegation of war power largely ignores America's recent history in Afghanistan. Military solutions to insurgencies are ineffective when the insurgents you are fighting can count on porous borders, a safe-haven in a neighboring country, and a host government unable to wean itself off of its addiction to corruption. Pushing so much control to the Pentagon has the risk of reinforcing a confidence in the current crop of commanders that they can succeed where previous commanders failed.
Our priority is to protect the American homeland; therefore, we should focus on that—not nation-building, regime change, and annihilating any form of terrorism anywhere around the globe.All tools of statecraft—economic, diplomatic, and military—should be employed to eliminate threats to U.S. security. But that means making strategic choices and prioritizing missions.
U.S. soldiers have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade and a half, making it America’s longest foreign war. There appears to be no end in sight. In fact, with the White House delegating authority to set troop levels to the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Mattis has decided to send another 4,000 troops to Afghanistan. But what have we achieved in nearly 16 years? And at what cost?
The president’s most sacred duty is protecting our national security, while Congress appropriates hundreds of billions in support of it and the Pentagon is tasked with maintaining it. An assessment of American military operations over the past two decades illustrates the lack of logical, coherent national security strategies. As a result, the safety of our citizens at home and interests abroad suffer continual degradation.
A decade and a half of experience more than demonstrates it is unrealistic and impractical to expect a foreign military—even the most powerful and well-funded military in the world by several orders of magnitude—to impose stability on Afghanistan. No occupying force can sweep every cave, clear every valley, re-build every village across more than 250,000 square miles. More to the point, no occupying force can make an external military solution fit what is primarily an internal political problem. Afghanistan can only be “fixed” by Afghans.
The United States remains a nation at war, with a passive Congress willing to cede even more power to an ever-assertive executive. The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches has been out of whack for far too long. If America’s elected representatives don't address that imbalance this year, when will they?