Aiding allies makes America safer
After ordering the small contingent of remaining U.S. forces out of Syria, President Donald Trump explained he was honoring a campaign pledge to stop our “endless wars.”
The decision raises many questions, but the more immediate result is withdrawing support from the hardfighting Kurds increases the danger to Americans from the Islamic State group.
The hard reality is that neither Trump nor the wider national security community can decide when U.S. wars end because, as all soldiers know, “the enemy gets a vote.” We did not start the wars with alQaida or ISIS, and we cannot unilaterally declare a truce on behalf of adversaries who remain intent on killing our people.
Americans don’t like sending Americans to fight in distant lands, but there is a multigenerational requirement to secure the U.S. against terrorists. Sending small groups of advisers to help those who are willing to fight is an excellent alternative. The military calls this acting “By, With and Through,” allies. Our relationship with Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria has been one of the most effective examples of this approach.
The quick, violent and highly successful campaign to deny alQaida sanctuary in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which was very much “By, With and Through,” morphed into America’s longest war. We didn’t have to go down a path that ended with the U.S. “owning” the situation in Afghanistan. We also chose to fight a war with Saddam Hussein, which many Americans believe was a mistake that led directly to the rise of ISIS.
In short, while it is wrongheaded to say we “overreacted” to the 9/11 attacks, it is appropriate to ask whether our subsequent policies were wise. However, we must first understand that alQaida and ISIS remain at war with us.
President George W. Bush and his administration listened when warned of the dangers posed by alQaida. The “plan” was to complete ongoing policy reviews. But before they could do so, alQaida struck. (Again, the enemy gets a vote.) It took the 9/11 attacks for the Bush team and the broader public to grasp Osama bin Laden’s intent and capabilities.
Although many tactical lessons were learned from 9/11, two relevant strategic lessons understood by the Bush team may be fading from memory. First, if an international actor declares war on you, believe them. Second, even if we have no other interests, the U.S. cannot allow semigoverned parts of the planet to become sanctuaries for those who intend to do us harm.
The Obama administration believed we should never have gone into Iraq, which no doubt influenced its reaction to Iraqi gamesmanship by ordering U.S. forces home in 2011. Many argued we had invaded Iraq, thereby making it vulnerable, and that we should at least leave advisory teams and enough air power to assist the young Iraqi army in responding to attacks by Islamic militants. History does not reveal its alternatives, but in the end, ISIS swept through northern Iraq and Syria, declared a caliphate, issued a highly successful call for foreign volunteers, and launched a global terrorism campaign. In 2014, President Barack Obama reintroduced troops and air power into Iraq, where our forces confronted not a terrorist group but a conventional army holding territory.
The most effective and cheapest way to protect us from the multigenerational threats posed by these terrorist organizations, while avoiding endless deployments of U.S. forces, is to support state and nonstate allies who are willing to fight. But after what we just did to our former friends, the Kurdish fighters in Syria, one has to wonder who will answer our phone call when we need help in the future.
J. Paul Pope is a professor of practice at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Letters may also be mailed to Letters, Express-News, P.O. Box 2171, San Antonio, TX 78297. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Length? The shorter the better – long enough to make your point. All letters are subject to editing for length and clarity.