The new war could be worse – without solving the problem
When perhaps America’s foremost warrior says that war doesn’t work, one would think someone might listen.
Instead, we may be just days away from the resumption of what is arguably the most hopeless conflict of our time.
And this time, it could take its worst form yet.
William McRaven knows what it means to win.
The retired admiral capped off four decades in uniform by leading—as head of U.S. Special Operations Command—the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Few can match his military résumé.
But William McRaven also knows what it means to lose.
When he was in charge of special operations in Afghanistan, even he fell for the perennial siren song of military force.
“I believed that more troops, more weapons, and more money could solve some of the most intractable problems. They could not,” he writes in *Foreign Affairs*.
McRaven is no alone in having experienced such a loss.
Over decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform have seen their blood and sweat sacrificed in vain—with military victories reduced to political ashes.
William McRaven and Barack Obama, 2011. Photo: Charles Dharapak / AP
What sets McRaven apart is that he is trying to learn from it. If the most powerful military force in world history repeatedly fails to achieve its political objectives, it is not because it is too small, too weak, or poorly led.
It is because there are problems that military force cannot solve.
It is, of course, no coincidence that McRaven is writing now.
A war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran appears to be on the verge of erupting once again.
New attacks are already being planned, and could commence as soon as the U.S. midterm elections are out of the way.
We do not know whether a final decision has been made. Perhaps all the signals pointing toward an imminent strike are merely a form of scare tactic—an attempt to ultimately force an agreement upon Iran.
Yet, many factors point toward war.
Three aircraft carriers and two amphibious strike groups may soon be in position in the region—the largest naval buildup in over 20 years. The U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia has been evacuated of non-essential personnel. Allies have been warned of potential Iranian counterattacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for action.
Donald Trump. Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson / AP / TT
Anonymous officials have described the plan as a “major operation”—a broader campaign than those seen previously.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who has gained insight into these plans, offers a more blunt assessment:
“The plan is insane,” he writes on X.
“It won’t achieve its objectives and will trigger a new cycle of escalation.”
For that description to be accurate, the large-scale strikes against civilian targets—which Donald Trump threatened this past spring—must be back on the table. Or perhaps something even worse. Such attacks would almost certainly lead to suffering, war crimes, and a further descent into an abyss of human-on-human barbarity.
With equal certainty, they will not work.
The United States unleashed over 13,000 bombs and missiles on Iran during the spring, yet failed to solve the problem.
Why would more of the same help?
One dose not need to be a decorated military officer—or even particularly clever—to grasp the limitations of military power.
This is evidenced by the fact that, ever since the war against Iran began, I have been describing essentially the same issues that McRaven highlights.
Military force is never a standalone solution; it can only be effective under very specific circumstances.
McRaven points to several clear lessons from the 1991 Gulf War—the United States’ major military success of the post-war era:
The fact that none of these apply to Donald Trump’s war against Iran explains why it has become a strategic failure.
Further bombing will not change that.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar