Carte Blanche: Peace in the Middle East?
Jorgen Haland/UNSPLASH
President Trump recently announced his intention to remove over 2,200 US troops from Iraq, which would reduce the total troop deployment in the Middle Eastern country from 5,200 to 3,000. Recently, anti-war rhetoric has become more pervasive in the Trump campaign as the upcoming election looms near.
Trump’s promise to end “endless wars” was a central tenet of his 2016 presidential campaign, and he echoed those sentiments earlier this year as he spoke to West Point’s graduating class in June. Furthermore, Rand Paul’s speech at the RNC commended Trump’s effort to “end wars rather than start them,” a narrative consistent throughout the Trump Presidency.
Whether he actually is as adamantly against war as he claims to be is up to speculation. Though his 2016 statements during Republican primaries addressing the Iraq War and condemning former President George Bush– in front of Bush’s own brother– was a landmark moment in right-wing politics. There are “hawkish” GOP supporters who refuse to support Trump in the upcoming election, one of those individuals being former Secretary of Defense Colin Powell.
The outcry against foolish warmongering was most prominent on the left, as many criticized President Bush’s unconstitutional usage of the Authorization for Military Force (AUMF), which wrestled war powers away from Congress definitively and handed them over to the Executive Branch. However, criticism on the left has been leveled because of the drain on federal resources that could be used on entitlements, rather than the acknowledgment that the “nation-building” agenda of the Obama administration was– to put it mildly– disastrous and unethical.
One of the most prominent voices on the left against senseless wars has been Tulsi Gabbard. Interestingly, the DNC alienated her from the convention even though she has bipartisan appeal for her military background and position against senseless war. It seems there is difficulty gaining political clout and support while being staunchly opposed to bloodshed.
It could be argued that Trump has been one of the more consistently anti-war candidates that the US has seen in the 21st century. However, I say" “it can be argued” because he very well could be pushing the US and the world to an even larger scale conflict.
It would be politically motivated and malignant to say Trump cares only about his perception in the polls, and it is the sole reason for him advocating the removal of 2,200 troops from Iraq, negotiating troop removal with the Taliban, and removing nearly 11,000 troops from Germany.
One could easily point out that the Trump administration failed to acknowledge the alleged Russian bounties offered to Afghan soldiers in exchange for killing American soldiers, the assassination of General Qasem Sulaimani, comments on NATO, or his peculiar diplomatic status with Russia. I mention these to highlight a key factor: motivation. Is the US seeking to remove itself militarily to promote peace or to regroup for another Cold War? Perhaps even a hotter one.
One should note the reallocation of troops from Germany, these troops were not simply brought home, over 5,600 were redeployed to Poland. A nation that has been very cooperative with NATO and has enthusiastically rebuilt its own military. Poland has not only rebuilt its air force to one of the most formidable in NATO but has committed to spending billions to accommodate US/NATO bases.
Furthermore, the other 5,300 troops brought back to the US are on a rotating schedule to supplement defenses for many other Eastern European nations. Also, there are still nearly 25,000 US soldiers garrisoned within Germany, so the defense has not been neglected.
The main question is “why?” Why are we recommitting massive amounts of manpower and resources outside of the US? How does it benefit the American people? This question has routinely been answered by many Libertarians: it doesn't benefit Americans, nor should we continue to waste assets into foreign military campaigns.
Here, I am at odds with the mainstream Libertarian position. Nation-building and preventative wars for the sake of American interests are at best morally questionable and inefficient, at worst the trade of imperialists and tyrannical warmongers. However, the US does have an obligation to NATO and to offer support to friendly allies that truly face threats.
Poland has quite the unfortunate history of being ill-prepared for conflict, and much of Eastern Europe is struggling with the growing threat of Russia encroachment. For example, Georgia is at this moment partially occupied by Russia, and they have watched Russia slowly move the border closer– inch by inch, day by day. Additionally, Russia has increased troop movements within Belarus to ensure public support of the friendly Lukashenko regime.
Thaddeus Russell claimed Trump was more anti-war than his predecessors, but he was still a mass murderer. I see this as a rather reductive sentiment. Trump has soured relations with Iran and China, and dramatically increased tensions between these states by ending the nuclear deal and initiating a trade war. We know that Iran was still pursuing nuclear exploits despite the parameters of the deal, and their instigative behavior could be strongly attributed to the normalization of relations between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain with rumored Saudi Arabian support.
The tariffs resulting from the trade war have hurt consumers and certain industries, but China has frequently heightened tensions in the South China Sea. More recently, China has spurred spats on the border with India. Not to mention, China has continued to systematically round up the Uighur people and commit cultural genocide. Russia, China, and Iran have proven themselves to be bad actors, however, how close is the Trump administration to initiating an all out war between the US these most ideologically opposed rivals?
Maybe the bigger question that should be asked is would a war with these states be more or less justifiable than our escapades into the Middle East? Opting for peace must be paramount to prevent war between the Western world order and the likes of Russia and China and Iran, but when does pacifism turn into appeasement? War is hell, and it should neither be glorified nor sought, but a state must be prepared for when it comes.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you seek peace, you must prepare for war.
