By Jonathan S. Tobin
Thursday, October 19, 2017
When President Donald Trump boasts, the nation rolls its
collective eyes. From his first moments in office, Americans on both sides of
the political aisle understood that his claims of triumph usually had little to
do with the facts. That was true of the talk about record attendance at his
inauguration and continues to also be true about his claims of passing more
legislation or getting more done than all of his predecessors. The
controversies engendered by Trump’s bragging or false statements (such as those
he recently made about other presidents consoling the survivors of American
combat troops killed in battle) have become the obsessive concern of his
critics as well as of fans who brand the president’s debunkers as purveyors of
“fake news” or merely take delight in his trolling of his liberal opponents.
But when it comes to one of Trump’s boasts, it’s hard for
even his sternest detractors to gainsay him. Try as they might to deny it, even
the efforts of the New York Times to
discount his assertion rings false. ISIS was still largely undefeated and in
control of much of the territory of Iraq and Syria when Trump was sworn in
before a non-record setting crowd. But only nine months into his
administration, the Islamic State’s hold on these countries has dwindled, and
after the liberation this week of Raqqa, Syria, capital of the Islamists’
caliphate, it’s fair to say that the group is being routed after years in which
it held its own against coalition forces.
How much of this is due to Trump’s influence?
As with any war and, indeed, a great many other
occurrences during any administration, the personal credit or blame that
accrues to a president is widely exaggerated. The people winning this war are
the U.S. air crews and special operators killing the terrorists as well as the
coalition forces — principally local militias and the Kurdish Peshmerga
fighters — who have paid for the ground won from the terrorists in blood. Trump
didn’t personally beat ISIS anymore than Franklin Roosevelt beat Japan and
Germany singlehandedly. Nor, on the other side of the ledger, were Kennedy,
Johnson, and Nixon solely to blame for the disaster in Vietnam. But that is how
history and politics works, and if the current victories lead, as seems highly
likely, to the collapse of the caliphate, the only reason to deny Trump his
fair share of the credit is partisan politics and the personal animus most of
the press harbors toward him.
Recent political history provides us with a clear example
of how this works.
Republicans and conservatives winced in 2011 when
President Barack Obama took credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. Their
irritation grew as Obama and other Democrats never missed an opportunity during
the 2012 election to do a bin Laden touchdown dance, which sought to draw a
contrast between this easily understood symbolic American victory and the
bloody stalemates produced by the frustrating wars George W. Bush fought in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
But while Obama may have exploited bin Laden’s death for
partisan purposes, the fact remains that it happened on his watch, not that of
Bush, who had done all that he could to achieve the same object, as well as to
avenge 9/11 by depriving al-Qaeda of its base in Afghanistan. Dismiss it as
mere luck if you like, but if we are prepared to blame presidents for
everything else that happens while they are in the White House, it’s only fair
to let them take credit for anything good, especially if they are the ones
involved in making the decisions, as Obama was on the bin Laden operation.
The facts about the campaign against ISIS are just as
clear-cut.
When Trump took office, the U.S. had been mired in a
discouraging stalemate in the fight against a group that Obama had initially
dismissed as the “JV” terrorist team and therefore unworthy of his attention.
Obama had little appetite for another Middle East war after he pulled U.S.
forces out of Iraq. Having claimed that he had ended or wound down America’s
wars, it took more than a year for him to admit that his Iraq bugout and
refusal to intervene in the Syrian civil war — even to enforce his “red line”
over Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons — had created a vacuum that ISIS
filled. That reluctance seemed to carry over into U.S. efforts during the two
years following Obama’s 2014 pledge to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the
terrorist group as coalition forces made little headway against the enemy.
Did Trump entirely reinvent the war against ISIS? No, he
didn’t, and his liberal detractors have spent the year correctly pointing out
that the coalition war plans implemented this year were conceived by Obama’s
Pentagon. But try as they might to deprive Trump of credit, there’s no way to
pretend that the coalition didn’t have better success with those plans this
year than they had in the previous two. In January, ISIS controlled 23,300
square miles. Today it holds onto about 9,300 square miles.
Trump’s role in the transformation is not insignificant.
It is unfair to U.S. and coalition troops to claim, as
Trump does, that they didn’t “fight to win” until he arrived in the Oval
Office. But as the Times admits,
there was one significant difference. In the spring, Trump loosened the rules
of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day
decisions about fighting the enemy. Under Obama, the White House micromanaged
the conflict in a manner that calls to mind the way President Lyndon Johnson
and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fought the Vietnam War with similar
dismal results.
The Times and
other Trump critics blame Trump for the increase in civilian casualties in the
fighting against ISIS since then. But if you are going to link Trump to that
statistic, it isn’t logical to assert that the new rules of engagement had
nothing to do with freeing up the coalition to attack the enemy with more
aggression. Though the number of air strikes hasn’t increased, their impact has
been greater, and that is probably because competent military commanders in the
field are making the decisions rather than civilian staffers posing as military
experts in the White House situation room.
It’s true that the taking of Raqqa and the collapse of
the caliphate as a functional state won’t end the war. ISIS fighters will
probably reassemble to fight a guerilla war. Trump’s defense team will have to
be nimble enough to adapt to the shift. Trump must also understand that the
fight against ISIS shouldn’t distract the U.S. from Iran, which remains the
main threat to Western interests in the region. Ultimately, he’s going to have
to choose between his correct instinct to confront Tehran and his desire for
better relations with Russia, Iran’s ally in Syria.
Yet none of that changes the fact that ISIS is being
defeated on Trump’s watch and, at least in part, because of decisions he has
made. There will be plenty that happens during his presidency for which he will
deserve to be blamed but, his boasts notwithstanding, this victory also belongs
to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment