By M.G. Oprea
Thursday, April 13, 2017
The Trump administration wants to break with Obama’s
policy of discussing and forecasting the deployment of U.S. troops. This policy
shift, which was announced last month after it came out that a unit of U.S.
Marines had been quietly sent to Syria, is intended to give the U.S. the
element of surprise in its battle against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
According to Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon, “In order to
maintain tactical surprise, ensure operational security and force protection,
the coalition will not routinely announce or confirm information about the
capabilities, force numbers, locations, or movement of forces in or out of Iraq
and Syria.”
This is in keeping with Trump’s rhetoric during the
campaign: “I don’t want to be like Barack Obama where he announced a few months
ago we are sending 50 soldiers, our finest, to Iraq and Syria. Why do you
announce that? Why do you tell the enemy that your sending people over there
and they now have a target on their backs?”
Could This
Exacerbate The Risk Of Mission Creep?
This policy shift is all the more notable in light of the
recent airstrike on a Syrian airbase and the possibility of increased military
engagement in the country. Trump’s detractors argue that this secrecy will rob
the American people of the chance to discuss and weigh-in on overseas military
engagements. An article in Politico railed against the new policy:
“The risk of mission creep is
compounded by Trump’s penchant for secrecy regarding how U.S. military forces
are being deployed. The lack of transparency guts public accountability at the
very time when more U.S. forces are being put in harm’s way, risking
ever-expanding commitments with no real public debate.”
To be sure, there ought to be some level of openness
about the extent to which the U.S. is committing itself in foreign conflicts.
The public should debate this and make its sentiments known to lawmakers and
the president. But that kind of engagement is not the same thing as having an
up-to-date live feed of all troop movements.
We Are Used
Instant Gratification, But It Doesn’t Fit War
We desire this level of information, in part, because we
are used to having instant gratification thanks to the internet and the
ever-vigilant (or distracted) masses on social media. We’ve started to treat
knowledge of all things like a right. We have a right to know exactly where
U.S. troops are, don’t we? This is certainly how the Obama administration
treated foreign policy and military movements.
The Obama doctrine was centered on the dual-pronged
philosophy of diplomacy and absolute transparency. The two were connected.
Obama thought that the U.S. should lay everything on the table for the American
people at home and therefore also for our enemies. This notion grew from
Obama’s anti-Iraq War platform and Americans’ distaste for foreign engagements.
There was less of a need for secrecy because Obama thought America should rely
predominantly on diplomacy, by which he meant excluding the threat of military
force. The U.S. would avoid another war by never giving up on diplomacy, even
if it meant tipping our hand that military force was off the table, giving our
enemies the upper hand.
It’s no surprise, then, that former Obama administration
officials are aghast at Trump’s new policy. One of Obama’s National Security
Council spokesmen, Ned Price, said, “The position of the Obama administration
was that the American people had a right to know if servicemen and women were
in harm’s way. It’s truly shocking that the current administration furtively
deploys troops without public debate or describing their larger strategy.”
How Highly Should
We Value Transparency?
Transparency is desirable in most areas of government.
It’s important when it comes to things like the budget or what’s contained in a
massive healthcare bill. The American people want to know how a congressman is
using public funds. In these areas, the more transparency the better. But when
it comes to national security and the movements of the U.S. military, this is
not necessarily the case. Transparency on military matters can be harmful to
our strategic aims and possibly even dangerous.
Leaving some things concealed is also a vital element in
military strategy just as it is in other areas. If your business is in
competition with another firm, you don’t put all your cards on the table. You
want to keep your competitor guessing what your next move might be. Just so in
when it comes to military strategy and diplomacy.
There should, absolutely, be clear communication with the
public about foreign wars, and the U.S. hasn’t always had the best track record
on that score. But that doesn’t mean the government should volunteer
information about how it will proceed in every scenario. Our enemies certainly
aren’t playing by those rules.
Obama Never Acted
Like Our Enemies Pay Attention
The Obama administration never seemed to understand that
our enemies are paying attention. Perhaps that’s because Obama never truly
acknowledged that the U.S. had any enemies. His doctrine of diplomacy, which
could be summed up as “speak softly and don’t carry a stick,” assumed that all
countries have similar values and goals, and that getting along was just a matter
of clearing up some misunderstandings. If that were true, then his style of
absolute diplomacy would make sense.
But the reality is that America does have adversaries in
the world, and not all governments have virtuous motives. Some of them are
watching what we do, seeking to outmaneuver us.
Trump wants to keep ISIS on its toes by not openly
disclosing strategic planning when it comes to U.S. troops. Rightly so. But
ISIS probably doesn’t have the intelligence capabilities to analyze troop
movements, making the secrecy less necessary. That said, other countries are
paying attention—like China, Russia, or Iran. When we broadcast where we’re
sending our troops, we are also indicating to other countries where those
troops are not going. This can endanger the efficacy of our strategies in other
regions.
No comments:
Post a Comment