When we consider whether to deploy U.S. military forces to war, and then keep them at war, our assessment should focus singularly on strategic need. Put simply: Where does the balance fall between protecting America’s security and interests and suffering American casualties? Financial costs should be a very distant factor in our deliberations.
I note this in light of President Trump’s decision to reduce the U.S. military force presence in Afghanistan and Iraq significantly. Force levels in Afghanistan will fall from 4,500 to 2,500 and from 3,000 to 2,500 in Iraq. These withdrawals can be justified on a simple basis: It’s what Trump promised the voters in 2016. But these withdrawals cannot be justified as a continuation of Trump’s counterterrorism strategy.
Where does the strategic balance between staying and leaving fall?
Let’s start with the loss. Eight U.S. military personnel deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed by hostile action in 2020. Here’s a bit about each of them. Moises Navas had a wife and four children and loved watching his kids play sports. Diego Pongo spoke multiple languages. Celebrations of Pongo’s life brought his hometown to a standstill. Juan Covarrubias sought to one day join the FBI. He had spent the past few years helping his little sister better handle her depression. She told ABC 30, “I’m finally getting good grades in school and (have a) good social life and everything. And I thank him a lot for that.” Marshal Roberts was a proud family man beloved by his colleagues and friends. He really liked ice cream. Antonio Rodriguez was a “selfless” soldier who stood out in his unit. Javier Gutierrez was “very, very patriotic” and motivated to serve by his grandfather, a former U.S. Army Air Forces bombardier in World War II. Miguel Villalon’s mother said her son was “so proud to do what was his duty.” Ian McLaughlin’s mother testified that was “just the perfect example of a wonderful father, a wonderful son, and man. And he served his country bravely.”
These are just 8 of the 4,418 service members who have died in Iraq since 2003 and of 2,218 service members who have died in Afghanistan since 2001. Each had future aspirations. Each had family and friends. Each has a story worth reading at least a little bit about. These were people who served in wars they did not vote to begin. But they fought and died because that was their duty to country and to each other. Our most basic duty to them and America, then, is to make a strategy based on what our national interests demand.
That’s exactly how acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller framed Trump’s decision on Tuesday. Speaking from the Pentagon, Miller suggested that the drawdowns represented “the next phase of our campaign to defeat terrorists … including those who help and harbor them.” He added that the troop reductions do “not equate to a change in U.S. policy and objectives. … We all will execute this re-positioning in a way that protects … our superb allies that are critical to rebuilding Afghan and Iraq security capabilities and civil society for a lasting peace.”
I respect those who are in favor of these troop cuts and their rationale. But I believe they undermine rather than support American strategic interests. For a start, I see no consistency between these force redeployments and Miller’s commitment to “rebuilding” Iraqi and Afghan security forces and exerting pressure on those terrorists and their enablers who endeavor to kill Americans. On the contrary, these arbitrary withdrawals will reduce the U.S. military’s means to support our Iraqi and Afghan allies. The negative impact will be especially significant in the fields of intelligence and aviation assets. Attested by the tragic but limited U.S. casualties suffered this year, the vast majority of troops in both these nations are serving in supporting rather than active combat roles. But particular concerns attach to each country.
When it comes to Afghanistan, the primary risk is an undermining of the already fragile U.S.-Taliban and Afghan-Taliban peace processes. The Taliban are very actively testing the edges of these arrangements, seeking to fray the U.S. commitment to a conditions-based approach to making compromises. As a consequence, Afghan security forces are having to fight increasingly bloody battles and continue to take heavy casualties. There are many problems in Afghanistan. Very many. But the Trump administration’s strategy of military pressure linked to political engagement is well designed, offering the Taliban and their allies the choice between increasing carrots and escalating sticks.
Yet, where American intelligence and aviation assets are reduced, so also will the military’s ability to target the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other Salafi-Jihadist elements efficiently. Making matters worse, these withdrawals will only fuel the Taliban’s belief that it can engage with terrorist groups without American riposte. Simply put, I see no credible argument for how these withdrawals make America and Afghanistan safer.
A similar tale applies to Iraq. That nation is now led by the first truly nationalist-minded and resolute prime minister in its democratic history. No puppet of America, neither is Mustafa al Kadhimi an Iranian tool. From my perspective, three interests justify America’s continued military presence in Iraq. First, Kadhimi’s support for their presence. Second, the obstruction of an ISIS revival. Third, and as an attachment to the previous two factors, America’s interest in Iraq not becoming another Lebanon or Syria — which is to say, a citadel of Iranian cronyism, exported terrorism, and instability. It bears noting that 3 of the 4 Americans killed in action in Iraq this year were lost at the hands of the proxy militia of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Kata’ib Hezbollah. That reflects Iran’s recognition that the quicker America withdraws, the sooner Tehran can restore control over Baghdad politics. We should oppose that pursuit. Not simply for its undermining of Iraq’s democracy and stability, but for the fact that Iran’s rising power in Iraq means more sectarianism and fuel for ISIS’s revival.
American families have lost much in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I do not believe these withdrawals serve U.S. national interests. Instead, these 2,500 round numbers seem far more suited to Trump tweets than to anything else.
