Small Wars Journal

America First Doesn't Mean America Alone

Wed, 05/31/2017 - 11:38am

America First Doesn't Mean America Alone by H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, Wall Street Journal

President Trump just returned from nine days in the Middle East and Europe that demonstrated his America First approach to ensuring security and prosperity for our nation. America will not lead from behind. This administration will restore confidence in American leadership as we serve the American people.

America First does not mean America alone. It is a commitment to protecting and advancing our vital interests while also fostering cooperation and strengthening relationships with our allies and partners. A determination to stand up for our people and our way of life deepens our friends’ respect for America.

The president is unequivocal in declaring that America’s primary interest is the safety and security of our citizens. In discussions overseas, Mr. Trump encouraged others to join the U.S. in doing more to defeat the terrorist organizations that threaten peaceful nations around the world. He challenged leaders of more than 50 Muslim-majority countries to stand together “against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

A strong stand against terrorism is consistent with values common across all the world’s great religions. After the president’s historic remarks, leader after leader of Muslim-majority nations reaffirmed the president’s message and committed to confronting the terrorism and extremism that plague all civilized societies. To answer the call and address these grave concerns, Saudi Arabia launched a new Global Center for Combatting Extremist Ideology, and several Middle Eastern nations signed a memorandum of understanding to create the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, with the mission of cutting off funds to terrorist organizations…

Read on.

The New Normal: Sending Troops to Afghanistan and Forgetting They Exist

Wed, 05/31/2017 - 10:16am

The New Normal: Sending Troops to Afghanistan and Forgetting They Exist by Daniel R. DePetris, The National Interest

The handwriting is on the wall: Whether it’s a strategically sound policy or not, it’s likely the Trump administration will authorize the Pentagon to deploy an additional three thousand to five thousand U.S. troops to Afghanistan to ostensibly prevent the Taliban from capturing more territory.

While the details are not yet out, administration officials are saying the exact things one would expect before a sizable troop increase. Gen. John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, requested additional troop strength in February during a congressional hearing, selling it as the only way to stop the situation from getting worse. In his annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats wrote that “endemic state weaknesses, the [Afghan] government’s political fragility, deficiencies of the Afghan National Security Forces, Taliban persistence, and regional interference will remain key impediments to improvement.” Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, all but brought in a flashing red light to the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month, warning that “we’ll lose all the gains we’ve invested in over the last several years” if Washington doesn’t do something. Coming from a military man, that “do something” means more U.S. soldiers, more trainers, more advisers, more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, more of everything.

No one disputes the intelligence community’s assessment of Afghanistan. The security situation has been deteriorating markedly over the past year. Quarterly reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction have been a bevy of bad news; the latest tallied a record number of civilian casualties, a record number of security incidents with insurgents, a total of 2,135 Afghan army and police killed or wounded during the first two months of this year (an average of thirty-six people a day), and eight million Afghans now under Taliban control (an increase of 3.4 million over the previous year) aren’t signs that the status quo is working. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Afghanistan is showing progress.

Yet if current battlefield dynamics in Afghanistan are troubling, the embarrassing lack of public debate in the United States about whether it’s appropriate to send more U.S. and NATO troops into the country is almost un-American…

Read on.