The United States has been in a constant state of war since 9/11. The war in Afghanistan began on October 7th 2001, and at 19 years and 2 months is the longest conflict in US history. For context, the Vietnam War lasted 17 years and 4 months, and the Iraq War lasted 8 years and 9 months. After over 19 years of war, it is time for us to take stock of what we have accomplished — and failed to accomplish — in order to determine our best path moving forward when it comes to foreign policy.
Joe Biden shocked many in his own party when he selected Gen. Lloyd Austin — a retired four-star Army general who served as the 12th commander of United States Central Command — over Michele Flournoy — Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy under President Bill Clinton and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President Barack Obama — as his pick for Secretary of Defense. One primary reason this decision is seen as controversial is that Gen. Austin — having retired from the armed services in 2016 — has not been separated from the military for the minimum of 7 years, and will therefore require a congressional waiver to be appointed.
The logic behind this requirement is that it protects the notion of civilian control over the military. Personally, I am a firm believer in such civilian control over our armed forces, but I also recognize the benefits of a Secretary of Defense who understands life at the business end of foreign policy, as opposed to someone who has made a lot of decisions about going to war without actually having to do any of the fighting.
I served in Iraq at the same time that Gen. Austin did. We didn’t travel in the same circles, as he was a general and I was a Sergeant First Class with 1st Special Forces Group conducting combat operations in Iraq in 2006 and 2008. My overall impression of him at the time was that he was a competent commander. Of course, that is not to say that I agreed with every decision either the administration or every commander was making. However, given that his job was to carry out our commitment in Iraq, I believe he did so to the best of his ability with the resources he had available.
As someone who served both in the military and now in elected office, the concern is not necessarily who serves as Secretary of Defense. Instead, it’s the kind of strategy they will be charged with carrying out, and whether their experience and advice will be considered when it comes to crafting defense policy, instead of simply being required to make the best of whatever decisions are made by others.
When I decided to leave the military after my second combat tour and 11 years of active duty, many were confused. Why would I leave in the middle of my career? I loved being in the Special Forces, and loved the people I served alongside. What I was tired of was having to do our job with one — and sometimes both — hands tied behind our backs. When asked why I didn’t stay to fix the problem, my answer was simple. The men and women in the armed forces aren’t the problem. Politicians and bureaucrats are.
For too long, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to our country, our Constitution and our men and women serving in uniform. They have done so by refusing to accept their responsibility for the troops they place in harm’s way. Loose interpretations of the separation of powers have created a situation where the longest “wars” in US History are undeclared, with Congress happy to approve National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) without actually declaring war. This allows Congress to approve or disapprove of war depending on how the political winds are blowing. Both sides of the political aisle use this tactic, leaving our servicemen and women to suffer the consequences.
Going forward, the most important thing to watch is not only the individual selections for positions within our Department of Defense team, but whether or not we are going to craft a coherent defense policy given the obvious threats we face. Frankly, those threats are not coming from Afghanistan.
The reason I fully support bringing our troops home is because I do not believe that we have, nor have we ever had, a truly coherent strategy for the region. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. It is time to realize that whatever hopes we might have harbored for an Afghanistan created in our image, it was never a practical strategy given the history or culture of the country. Instead, we need to reorient our strategy to adequately prepare for future threats, as well as the real ones before us.
If we are serious about remaining the world’s only military superpower — which we should — then it is time to realize that the strategy of invading and subsequently taking over the government and economy of a country we don’t truly understand is a futile mission. The job of the US military is not to make the world “safe for democracy,” but rather to protect the United States, to identify relevant threats, and to neutralize those threats. This does not mean we can’t work with local parties in order to achieve greater stability, but we have to be realistic about what “stability” looks like.
The greatest threats to US interests in the 21st century come from a nuclear Iran, a saber-rattling Russia and the growing aggression and ambition of China. Investment in defensive and offensive cyber capabilities is critical. Greater emphasis on Counter Insurgency (COIN) and Unconventional Warfare (UW) is necessary, and adjusting our response to better understand and implement countermeasures to the asymmetric warfare strategies of our opposition must feature prominently in our approach. In addition to our own defense commitments, cooperation with allies is vital to ensuring that the United States does not bear the entirety of the responsibility when combatting aggression.
Central to this objective is the importance of striking the proper tone. Regardless of your opinion of the efficacy of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, it wasn’t the “peace through apology” strategy of the Obama and Biden years that achieved the historic treaties Trump brokered in the Middle East and the Balkans.
Peace is not maintained by endless wars, nor is it maintained by equivocation. It is maintained by a careful balance between the ability to use overwhelming force when necessary, and the wisdom required to understand and apply the best form of escalation. My concern is that the Biden Administration, regardless of who is picked to run individual departments or agencies, will not be able to demonstrate the political will to conduct war or achieve peace. Decisions will likely be determined by CNN polls rather than a comprehensive defense strategy that recognizes the importance of US military and economic dominance combined with the respect of proper constitutional processes before deploying troops or resources.
Our global competitors and enemies are watching closely. They feared Trump because they knew he was willing to use force, even though his record in office showed greater military restraint than several administrations before him.
The real and only question facing the Biden administration is whether they will attempt to deliver peace through strength, or peace through equivocation. Only one of those approaches has ever achieved the desired result. “Speak softly but carry a big stick,” as Teddy Roosevelt said, can be an effective strategy, but only if the stick is big enough and only if you are incredibly careful about when, where and against whom you use it. Unfortunately, numerous administrations of both parties have gotten it wrong in the past. Let’s hope our future defense strategy has the political will to reject both the endless wars of numerous administrations and the feckless equivocation of the Obama years.
Nick Freitas is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a Green Beret combat veteran.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.