Occupational hazards: How Trump can avoid ‘forever war’ in Iran
What's the administration thinking here?
President Donald Trump has shown a willingness to overthrow foreign leaders not seen since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq more than two decades ago, but he has yet to try to occupy and pacify another country militarily on that scale.
That is why so far, none of Trump’s military actions have spiraled out of control like Iraq did, which raises questions about whether he can continue this pattern in Iran.
It’s the occupation that turns a swift military action into a forever war.
Trump tends to strike decisively and then quit while he is ahead, as evidenced by last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran, the toppling of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and the bombing of Syria.
During his first term, Trump launched a successful anti-ISIS campaign without essentially reinvading Iraq.
Both that intervention and the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush differed from George W. Bush’s Iraq War by avoiding major military occupations.
The Operation Desert Storm phase of the elder Bush’s war with Iraq lasted just 42 days. The younger Bush’s occupation of Iraq outlasted his presidency.
A major question of the current Iran conflict is whether Trump can avoid another protracted war in the Middle East.
On the one hand, Trump’s ambitions in Iran seem more sweeping than the theatrical targeted strikes that have characterized his use of military force in the past. Trump has never done a regime change war. Even Venezuela’s government was left largely intact after Maduro was removed.
Then again, maybe this will also turn out to be decapitation rather than pure regime change. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested on Monday that while regime change would be nice, U.S. objectives are limited to militarily achievable goals.
“As the president said, he would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders. They’ve been wanting to remove them for a long time. We’ve seen successive waves of protests, and we’ve seen them slaughter people, okay?” Rubio told reporters. “But the objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region. That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing now.”
“And while we would love to see a new regime, the bottom line is no matter who governs that country a year from now, they’re not going to have these ballistic missiles, and they’re not going to have these drones to threaten us,” he …
What's the administration thinking here?
President Donald Trump has shown a willingness to overthrow foreign leaders not seen since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq more than two decades ago, but he has yet to try to occupy and pacify another country militarily on that scale.
That is why so far, none of Trump’s military actions have spiraled out of control like Iraq did, which raises questions about whether he can continue this pattern in Iran.
It’s the occupation that turns a swift military action into a forever war.
Trump tends to strike decisively and then quit while he is ahead, as evidenced by last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran, the toppling of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and the bombing of Syria.
During his first term, Trump launched a successful anti-ISIS campaign without essentially reinvading Iraq.
Both that intervention and the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush differed from George W. Bush’s Iraq War by avoiding major military occupations.
The Operation Desert Storm phase of the elder Bush’s war with Iraq lasted just 42 days. The younger Bush’s occupation of Iraq outlasted his presidency.
A major question of the current Iran conflict is whether Trump can avoid another protracted war in the Middle East.
On the one hand, Trump’s ambitions in Iran seem more sweeping than the theatrical targeted strikes that have characterized his use of military force in the past. Trump has never done a regime change war. Even Venezuela’s government was left largely intact after Maduro was removed.
Then again, maybe this will also turn out to be decapitation rather than pure regime change. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested on Monday that while regime change would be nice, U.S. objectives are limited to militarily achievable goals.
“As the president said, he would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders. They’ve been wanting to remove them for a long time. We’ve seen successive waves of protests, and we’ve seen them slaughter people, okay?” Rubio told reporters. “But the objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region. That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing now.”
“And while we would love to see a new regime, the bottom line is no matter who governs that country a year from now, they’re not going to have these ballistic missiles, and they’re not going to have these drones to threaten us,” he …
Occupational hazards: How Trump can avoid ‘forever war’ in Iran
What's the administration thinking here?
President Donald Trump has shown a willingness to overthrow foreign leaders not seen since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq more than two decades ago, but he has yet to try to occupy and pacify another country militarily on that scale.
That is why so far, none of Trump’s military actions have spiraled out of control like Iraq did, which raises questions about whether he can continue this pattern in Iran.
It’s the occupation that turns a swift military action into a forever war.
Trump tends to strike decisively and then quit while he is ahead, as evidenced by last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iran, the toppling of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and the bombing of Syria.
During his first term, Trump launched a successful anti-ISIS campaign without essentially reinvading Iraq.
Both that intervention and the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush differed from George W. Bush’s Iraq War by avoiding major military occupations.
The Operation Desert Storm phase of the elder Bush’s war with Iraq lasted just 42 days. The younger Bush’s occupation of Iraq outlasted his presidency.
A major question of the current Iran conflict is whether Trump can avoid another protracted war in the Middle East.
On the one hand, Trump’s ambitions in Iran seem more sweeping than the theatrical targeted strikes that have characterized his use of military force in the past. Trump has never done a regime change war. Even Venezuela’s government was left largely intact after Maduro was removed.
Then again, maybe this will also turn out to be decapitation rather than pure regime change. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested on Monday that while regime change would be nice, U.S. objectives are limited to militarily achievable goals.
“As the president said, he would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders. They’ve been wanting to remove them for a long time. We’ve seen successive waves of protests, and we’ve seen them slaughter people, okay?” Rubio told reporters. “But the objective of this mission is to make sure they don’t have these weapons that can threaten us and our allies in the region. That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing now.”
“And while we would love to see a new regime, the bottom line is no matter who governs that country a year from now, they’re not going to have these ballistic missiles, and they’re not going to have these drones to threaten us,” he …
0 Comments
0 Shares
37 Views
0 Reviews
