America’s foreign policy since Sept. 11, regardless of which party held the White House, has been one of perpetual conflict abroad. Whether President George W. Bush’s Iraq and Afghan wars, President Barack Obama’s excursions into Syria, back into Iraq, surges in Afghanistan, and his unnecessary military support in Yemen, or President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran (which brought America to the brink of war in January), our military-first policies have failed to make our country more secure and have weakened our armed forces. If improving America’s security is the objective, there is a better way to do foreign policy, one that we have used successfully in the past — and that the incoming Biden administration should learn from.
Since 1953, there have been three presidents who produced both a booming economy and a secure nation while refusing to be drawn into unnecessary military conflicts. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan struggled to find the balance between maintaining security for the nation and deciding whether or not to use force. All three faced major foreign crises that could have sucked the United States into war. The policies they successfully employed are instructive to us today.
In 1956, years of frustration with communist rule in Hungary exploded into rebellion. In response, the Soviet Union sent tanks into Hungary to put down the rebellion ruthlessly. There was great pressure on Eisenhower to respond militarily and support the freedom-seekers in Hungary.
Eisenhower, nevertheless, decided that however much he supported the Hungarians, he would not risk a major war, possibly resulting in a nuclear exchange, with the USSR. To do otherwise would not only have failed to liberate Hungary but would have imposed catastrophic harm to America. The president’s decision to stay out of the fight was right because, as events later proved, the situation in Hungary did not represent a threat to our security: Our conventional and nuclear deterrent successfully deterred the USSR from attacking us.
During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was faced with a potential existential threat when the USSR deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba, barely 90 miles from U.S. territory. The president came under enormous pressure by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer to authorize a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. Using backdoor diplomacy, Kennedy was able to defuse the crisis and avoid war.
What neither Kennedy nor Lemnitzer knew at the time, however, was that the USSR already had deployable nuclear missiles on Cuba. Had the president given into the temptation to solve the dispute with force, the result would likely have been a nuclear exchange in which tens of millions would have died.
Like Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan was faced with a potential crisis in Lebanon early in his first term. Fearing a war between Israel and Syria, Reagan decided to send a small contingent of Marines to Lebanon to act as a brake on both Israel and Syria. In October 1983, however, a Lebanese terrorist drove a truck loaded with explosives into the Marine barracks, killing 241 Americans.
Reagan came under enormous pressure to expand the military mission and exact revenge. Reagan initially vacillated between expanding the conflict and limiting the damage. Ultimately, he rejected the pressure and concluded that it would not serve America’s security interests to continue fighting. He withdrew the troops in March 1984.
Though Reagan continues to be excoriated for withdrawing by some even today, the fact is that while the Middle East continued to be chaotic, America’s national security interests were never at risk. Our powerful conventional and nuclear forces successfully deterred any opponents from attacking us.
America’s foreign policy since Sept. 11 has been one of perpetual conflict and a continuing degradation of our ability to defend against near-peer adversaries (the longer we divert our training focus to minor conflicts, the more we lose our edge to fight great power conflicts).
What we need is a policy based on three key principles: Reduce or eliminate engaging in small wars disconnected from U.S. security interests, end all our current unnecessary forever-wars, and strengthen our national security by focusing on the adversaries who may one day pose an existential threat.
When America has governed its foreign policy by those principles, we have flourished economically and been more secure as a nation. The last three presidential administrations have squandered the opportunity to improve our foreign policy. The incoming Biden administration has a chance to repair the damage.
Daniel L. Davis (@DanielLDavis1) is a senior fellow for defense priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.
