Exiting Middle East wars is the right move
Last month saw a sudden consensus emerge across the political establishment. The subject of this unlikely unity? Opposition to ending America’s participation in the Syrian civil war. Pundits and politicians from both sides of the aisle decried President Trump’s decision to bring home American troops from Syria, and also Afghanistan, labeling it a “retreat” guaranteed to sow the seeds of further regional chaos.
For me, the announcement was a welcome end to at least one front in our seemingly endless wars in the greater Middle East. If nothing else, the president’s decision should compel us to begin honestly defining our national interests in the region.
Americans have long heard a variety of arguments for continuing our foreign wars, but perhaps the most hackneyed is the idea that fighting terrorists “over there” is critical in preventing violence from reaching our doorstep. A perfect example of this logic can be found in a recent Washington Post opinion piece, “Why Guys Like Me Go to Places Like Syria,” written by Houston Republican congressman and former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw. The crux of his argument is that those of us who decline to commit to a forever war in Afghanistan, air strikes in Yemen, special operations forces in Syria and endless rotations of military advisers to Iraq are inviting another 9/11 or worse. In short, Crenshaw believes we need to fight them in Helmand Province so we don’t have to fight them in Houston.
Like Houston’s newly elected representative, I also served in what we now call the Global War on Terror, fighting against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Being a Marine was an amazing experience and the greatest honor of my life, but my time abroad left me deeply skeptical that anything resembling success can come from continued military intervention.
This idea that we must continue the wars overseas in order to protect ourselves ignores geography, history and often basic common sense. The perpetrators of most terrorist attacks around the world are citizens of the countries they attack, many of them radicalized online or in prison. A battalion of Marines or a team of SEALs can accomplish a lot, but it cannot extinguish ideas. That should be our first lesson from 17 years of war.
The second lesson is that much of the time our presence results in more enemies, not fewer. Yemen is a good example. Our drone strikes and support for the stalemated Saudi campaign there have not only failed to check Iranian influence, but have also delivered famine and disease to millions. We should not be surprised when starvation and cholera birth the next generation of jihadis.
The third lesson is that there is no singular “terror” for us to fight. Conflating Houthi rebels, Helmand poppy farmers and Hezbollah militiamen with the likes of al-Qaida is old-fashioned fear mongering. It falsely aggregates disparate groups, each of which has different motives and grievances, and most of whom possess neither the will nor the capabilities to mount an attack on the homeland.
Little in the Middle East warrants our continued military presence. We should limit, not expand, the list of items that merit spilling American blood: hunting real international terror networks and protecting global energy markets make the cut — and even Middle Eastern oil is less strategic these days, thanks to fracking here at home. Most other things do not merit military engagement.
The truly existential threats to our nation do not come from backpack bombs or even hijacked airliners, but from internal decay. Perhaps you also find this president’s methods and rhetoric distasteful, but he is correct to be aghast at the opportunity cost of these wars. We burned nearly $6 trillion in the Middle East in less than two decades. What has been the return on this investment? A more powerful Iran, a Europe struggling to assimilate millions of migrants and four times more Sunni Islamic militants in the world than there were on 9/11.
What if just some of that money had been used to repair our disintegrating infrastructure, combat the opioid crisis, surpass China in cyber warfare or mitigate the economic and social impact of industrial automation?
We deserve leaders who have the integrity and intelligence to challenge our failing policies in the Middle East. Must we continue to enable Saudi war crimes as American ingenuity coaxes more than 10 million barrels per day from domestic shale? Are more guns and money what a true friend of Israel would provide? Why do we need to take sides in a Sunni-Shia regional confrontation? We need politicians who will ask these difficult questions, instead of recycling the bankrupt foreign policy establishment’s conventional wisdom.
After the president’s Syria announcement, an outraged Sen. Lindsay Graham demanded congressional hearings. The irony of a Congress that abdicates oversight of a legally dubious war yet demands to be consulted about its end should be deeply troubling, regardless of which party you support. Houston, with the second largest veteran population of any American city, deserves more from our newest class of elected representatives in Washington. I hope that they will use this moment to begin asking the hard questions.