By David French
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Last night, Donald Trump did the responsible thing. He
reneged on a campaign promise to avoid losing a war. That’s exactly what we
want presidents to do when they win elections, learn new information, and begin
to fully understand the strategic, cultural, and political ramifications of
promises foolishly made. We want them to do what Trump candidly did last night
— admit that “decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the
Oval Office.”
In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, if there is any such
thing as a bipartisan strategic commitment, it’s a commitment to never again
preside over a debacle like the fall of Saigon. No president wants to be the
man who watches from the Oval Office as the last helicopter lifts off the roof,
leaving behind abandoned and desperate allies as sworn enemies sweep into a
foreign capital. This is especially true when those sworn enemies have used
that same land as base to plan, train, and inspire terrorists to strike targets
inside America.
Three consecutive presidents have faced their moments of
truth, and three consecutive presidents have made similar decisions (though in
different ways). When Iraq teetered on the brink of collapse, George W. Bush
rejected immense political pressure to withdraw and instead doubled down with a
potent troop surge that for a time decisively tipped the balance of power
against al-Qaeda.
His successor, Barack Obama, at first failed his test,
pulling troops from Iraq in spite of multiple warnings that the consequences
could be catastrophic. But then, he reversed course. When ISIS blitzed across
northern and western Iraq, Obama could have stayed out. He could have left Iraq
to fend for itself. But he didn’t. He intervened with decisive enough force to
halt ISIS’s offensive and then slowly (too slowly) provided indispensable
military force to assist counter-offensives that killed ISIS fighters by the
thousands and rolled back ISIS’s gains. By the end of his second term, the
Nobel Peace Prize winner hadn’t ended any wars. Instead, America had boots on
the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Syria.
Trump ran as a non-interventionist. He ran as the guy who
would decisively end America’s endless foreign wars. But when his moment of
truth arrived, Trump kept American troops in Iraq and Syria. In fact, he ramped
up American military efforts. And now he wants to reinforce Afghanistan, loosen rules of engagement that have
hampered American troops and hurt morale, and place welcome pressure on
Pakistan to act like an ally, not an enemy, in the fight against the Taliban.
Why? Why did three different presidents with three very
different ideologies reach such similar conclusions? Cynics and conspiracy
theorists blame a foreign-policy “blob” or the persistent and allegedly
pernicious influence of warmongering generals. But there’s a simpler, more
obvious, and I believe more accurate reason: It is plainly and obviously not in
America’s national interest for its terrorist enemies to win and maintain safe
havens overseas.
It’s a simple reality that when terrorists possess safe
havens, they become far more dangerous. Look at what al-Qaeda was able to
accomplish when it dominated Afghanistan. It launched terror attacks that
destroyed American embassies, nearly sank an American warship, and ultimately
did more damage in American cities than any foreign enemy since the British
burned Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812.
Look at ISIS’s deadly reach once it dominated northern
Iraq and northern Syria. Europe has suffered through a deadly spike in
terrorist violence, with hundreds of civilians killed and injured. Here at
home, terror plots and attacks increased as well. Of at least 96
known domestic plots and attacks since 9/11, more than one-third occurred
in the last three years since the rise of ISIS, and the casualty count in
deaths and injuries has increased dramatically.
As should be obvious by now, when fighting a militaristic
theological movement conventional military “victory” simply isn’t attainable.
While there may be political settlements in given regions at given times, there
won’t be a USS Missouri moment with
al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any successor jihadist group. They’re not going to lay down
their arms, and thus it’s not really even in our power to truly end the war.
Wars end when both sides stop fighting, not when just one side wants to make it
stop. We can certainly diminish the jihadist threat, and we can certainly
cripple jihadist forces. We cannot, however, extinguish the jihadist impulse.
Advocates of an American withdrawal should think hard
about the consequences. They should consider whether a Taliban-led government
in Kabul is in America’s best interests or whether it’s worth expending a very
small fraction of our military power to keep a jihadist enemy from winning a
historic victory. Indeed, denying terrorists safe havens should be the
cornerstone of American military strategy, and that requires constant vigilance
and potentially a permanent military commitment.
Perhaps one day the Taliban will exhaust themselves and
seek peace. Likely not. But we in turn cannot grow weary in our own commitments
to our own defense. In his speech, Trump provided an interesting definition of
victory — “attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda,
preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror
attacks against America before they emerge.” In other words, “victory” is a
process, and while the aim is to inflict a “lasting defeat” on America’s
enemies, there is no timetable for this war.
Good. Our enemy doesn’t have a timetable. Jihadists have
fought the perceived enemies of Islam for more than a thousand years. Our
nation’s commitment to its people should be clear. Each and every year that
jihadists are willing to fight is a year that we are ready and able to defend
ourselves, to deny them safe havens, and to strike them before they can strike
us.
Trump’s change of heart is significant, and it’s a signal
to our foes. American presidents, when confronted with reality, have risen to
the occasion. One more American president has said no to another Saigon. He’s
said no to another surrender. Americans can and should breathe easier —
President Trump won’t be the president to lose this war.
No comments:
Post a Comment