Author: Defense Priorities

Today, the Pentagon announced a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing our presence to 2,500 in each country by January 15, 2021. Defense Priorities President Edward King issued the following statement in response:

“Reducing US troop levels to 2,500 in both Afghanistan and Iraq is responsible – it would be irresponsible to not get to zero. The ongoing military occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the greater Middle East are costly mistakes that come at the expense of higher defense priorities.

“Talk of a ‘conditions-based’ withdrawal is a stalking horse for staying indefinitely, or forever. There is no such thing as an immaculate withdrawal from these conflicts, and there’s no reason to think the ground reality will improve after nearly 20 years of waiting.

“The February 2020 U.S.-Taliban agreement set a timeline to remove all US forces by May 2021. There is nothing that should delay or derail progress toward bringing all our troops home by that deadline.”

Defense Priorities report: Exiting Afghanistan

Defense Priorities explainer: The case for withdrawing from the Middle East

Defense Priorities Foundation is a think thank whose mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military – used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests – and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security. Visit their website.

From Defense Priorities:

Today, CNN reported President Trump will announce a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing our presence to 2,500 by January 15, 2021. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“Reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 2,500 would be progress, but the drawdown should continue to zero. Full withdrawal should be as orderly and deliberate as possible—but not to the point of needless delay.

“Leaving permanent U.S. forces behind in Afghanistan or Iraq would be a mistake. Small numbers of forces, whether labeled as counterterrorism or not, are no magic bullet. They would likely continue the wars’ failure on a smaller scale, preserve their risk, and cause observers to confuse local threats with international terrorism.

“Intelligence gathering with local help, and targeted raids, if necessary, are more effective and can be done from afar with the U.S. military’s ISR-Strike capabilities.”

Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi is meeting with President Trump to discuss issues including the presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Defense Priorities Senior Fellow Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, USA, Ret. issued the following statement in response:

“In 2017, the ISIS caliphate lost its territory in Iraq—since then, U.S. troops have been in the country with no militarily attainable objectives. They are effectively sitting in Iraq with targets on their backs, giving regional combatants – who otherwise wouldn’t be able to endanger American lives – the opportunity to launch tactical attacks against our troops. Plainly stated, there are no threats to U.S. security in Iraq that justify the continued deployment of approximately 5,000 U.S. soldiers.

“We maintain an unparalleled ability to conduct targeted strikes against any threats that may arise against the United States, no matter where in the world they originate – including Iraq and Syria. We don’t need troops permanently stationed on the ground there to assure our safety.

“The U.S. military should only be asked to defend American security – President Trump should withdraw all U.S. combat troops from both Iraq and Syria to limit the risk to our forces and preserve our national security interests. The Iraqi Prime Minister and his government need to defend their own country.”

Defense Priorities report: Keeping U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria courts war

Defense Priorities explainer: Dealing with the remnants of ISIS

The U.S. Has No Strong Security Interests in Ukraine

1. Ukraine is not a US ally, is distant from US shores, and holds little geopolitical significance.
2. The United States should avoid entanglement in the Ukraine crisis, a conflict that could draw it into war with nuclear Russia.
3. U.S.-Ukraine policy should encourage its settlement with Russia, not encourage it to continue the present conflict and become a perpetual ward of the US or EU – poisoning U.S.-Russian relations in the process.
4. EU nations have a stronger interest in a peaceful and independent Ukraine – and should take greater responsibility for that outcome.

Costs and Benefits of Providing US Military Support to Ukraine

• Advocates for lethal aid to Ukraine argue it raises the cost to Russian military adventurism and discourages future land-grabs. But that assumes that additional Russian aggression is likely and won’t be encouraged by aggressive US tactics.
• No amount of US aid to Ukraine will enable it to defeat Russia. But aid draws the US and Ukraine closer together, shifting more of Ukraine’s security burden to the world’s only superpower.
• US aid promotes moral hazard: (1) It encourages Ukraine to take a harder line against Russia that it cannot maintain on its own, and (2) it discourages Kiev from seeking a settlement with Moscow, prolonging the crisis.

Continue reading “Risks of Lethal Aid to Ukraine: Defense Priorities”