Protect the United States: Don’t overreach

It looks as if President Donald Trump is going to get his military parade after all. The last time our forces paraded across Washington was in 1991, to hail our triumph in the Gulf War. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much to celebrate in our foreign policy since — unless you count the 15-year anniversary, on Tuesday, of the start of the Iraq War. I don’t. As a veteran of Afghanistan, I wish this weren’t the case. No patriot wants to see us fail. But America’s approach to the world just isn’t working to make us safer and more prosperous. And Trump isn’t helping. We need a more effective and realistic foreign policy.

The Iraq War is just the worst in a string of failures. They range from that destructive regime-change mission in Iraq and a later such effort in Libya to the ill-fated nationbuilding project in Afghanistan, and all the way back to the dangerous enlargement of NATO in the 1990s and 2000s to include countries on Russia’s doorstep. In the process, nearly 7,000 American troops have been killed and tens of thousands wounded, and we’ve spent trillions of dollars — all while failing to achieve our strategic objectives.

Underlying all of these failures is the view, endorsed by both parties, that we need an active military presence around the globe to shape what happens almost everywhere. But it doesn’t matter how well funded our Pentagon, how brave our troops or how well intentioned our diplomats are. So long as we keep tinkering with this flawed operating system, we will continue to fail.

A recent poll by my organization, the Charles Koch Institute, and RealClearPolitics found that a majority of American civilians and veterans agree that the last 15 years of such efforts haven’t made us safer and that Iraq is only the most concrete example. But the first year of the Trump administration suggests more of the same is ahead.

As an outspoken critic of the Iraq War during his election campaign, Trump should use this somber anniversary — and the appointment of a new secretary of state — to consider an alternate approach to the United States’ role in the world. A constructive but realistic mindset would put our safety first while expanding America’s opportunities to engage productively with the world.

Constructive realism looks at the world squarely as it is. International politics can be a dangerous arena, and the United States isn’t guaranteed a permanent spot atop the world’s major powers; therefore, we must have a national defense that is second to none.

But realism also calls on policymakers to be prudent in how we use these forces. This means no more Iraqs, no more Libyas and no more sending “government in a box” to the distant provinces of Afghanistan while needs at home are neglected. It means accepting that not every bad thing that happens in the world threatens our interests or merits the investment of American lives and dollars. It also asks us to acknowledge that Washington’s good intentions aren’t enough, and that it’s all too easy to make problems worse for those we try to help.

The realist approach to foreign policy won’t undercut our strength — far from it. Focusing on a narrower set of priorities will help us make wiser investments in our military. A modern, secure, second-strike nuclear capability can deter attacks against the United States. Our naval and air forces can command the seas, space and strategic choke points of the globe so that we benefit from commerce while keeping dangers far from our shores. Special operations forces can lead in the fight against terrorism. This way of thinking also allows us to reduce the size and global footprint of our ground forces.

American foreign policy is most effective when we aren’t looking just to the military realm. We need a fully staffed diplomatic corps that can skillfully promote American interests abroad, without mucking around in the domestic politics of other countries where our vital interests aren’t clearly in play. Development projects would be left to the market, while we would continue to support liberalizing trade agreements that foster cross-border cultural and economic ties for mutual benefit. But we wouldn’t naively assume that economic cooperation or the spread of democracy will end international competition.

The Iraq War was not an aberration. It was the logical outcome of a lack of confidence in our strength and security, as well as the idealistic way we’ve been thinking about foreign policy and our role in the world. It began as an effort to topple a dictator whose threat to peace in his region had already been reduced, and as a mission to fundamentally reshape the Middle East. What resulted was chaos and civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of new terrorist groups that further undermined peace and stability in the region. It also ended up strengthening Iran.

America deserves a new, more realistic foreign policy that will help us avoid the next Iraq. American lives and our future prosperity are at stake.

William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. He wrote this commentary for The New York Times.