Some years after the most successful U.S. war of recent decades — the 1991 rout of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait — Gen. Colin Powell articulated the principles that guided the Bush administration’s strategy.
“Decide what you are trying to achieve politically and, if it can’t be achieved through political and diplomatic and economic means, and you have to use military force, then make sure you know exactly what you’re using the military force for and then apply it in a decisive manner,” the former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and secretary of state told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
The idea that military campaigns should only be undertaken if there was a clear national security threat, a clear goal and a clear exit strategy became known as the Powell Doctrine and guided American policy in the latter part of the 20th Century.
But the second Bush administration ignored its lessons in launching the 2003 campaign that overthrew Saddam Hussein, and President Donald Trump’s conduct of the current war against Iran suggests that the Powell Doctrine has unfortunately now been relegated to history.
As Trump is already learning, wars are much easier to start than to end. It is easy in the first flush of success to overlook the complexities that inevitably arise, especially in a war of choice.
Not only did Trump and other top aides fail to define a clear national security need for launching this campaign at this time, but they have expressed a variety of thoughts as to the goal.
Meanwhile, Trump quickly showed his naivete about the region when he told CNN’s Jake Tapper that his “biggest surprise” was Iran’s decision to attack its Arab neighbors, though long-standing enmities between them made that response almost inevitable.
Perhaps the clearest goal of the current war is destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons and, with that, its potential for attacking Israel and other American allies. But even that seemingly simple goal is not, in fact, a simple matter.
After all, when Trump initially assumed office, an international agreement, negotiated by the United States and its top allies during Barack Obama’s administration, had barred Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
But Trump campaigned against the pact as inadequate and withdrew U.S. participation as part of undoing everything Obama had done. Ever since, the United States has tried unsuccessfully to put that Iranian nuclear genie back into the bottle.
President Joe Biden’s administration sought unsuccessfully to persuade Iran to accept restoration of the agreement. Trump unleashed a targeted U.S. attack on the country’s nuclear sites last June and declared it had “completely and totally obliterated” them.
But it soon became clear his assessment was optimistic, and Trump renewed diplomatic efforts to prevent the Iranians from restoring their nuclear program and achieving a nuclear weapon.
Talks were on-going, when Trump launched the current war. Exactly why he decided to resort to force then is unclear. His initial statement declared, without providing specifics, that, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”
Two days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel was planning an attack on Iran “that would precipitate an (Iranian) attack against American forces” so the United States decided to “preemptively” attack to avoid higher U.S. casualties at bases in the region.
But Trump said “we were going to be attacked” by Iran, though he still hasn’t provided any evidence.
If the reasons for the U.S. decision to start the war remain confused, so do its ultimate goals. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the mission is “laser-focused” to “destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons.”
By all accounts, the United States and Israel are well on their way toward that goal. But the Iranians and their terrorist allies remain able to carry on the fight by attacking U.S.-friendly Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.
Meanwhile, rather than seeing its initial military successes as a step toward ending the war, the administration may be seeking to expand them.
NBC News reported Friday that Trump is considering deploying some ground troops into Iran, something that would mean a whole new level of American involvement. One goal might be to find and remove Iran’s stockpile of fissionable material.
And though Trump has not explicitly called for “regime change, he has expressed some broad political goals.
Before the Iranians chose the assassinated Ali Khamenei’s son as their new leader, Trump told Axios, “I have to be involved in the appointment,” as he was after U.S. forces ousted Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.
Then, Trump upped the ante, rejecting reports the Iranians were seeking a deal to end the fighting and declaring, “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
Meanwhile, the war’s domestic fallout is just beginning. Soaring oil prices threaten to undercut the administration’s efforts to curb domestic inflation, and Friday’s poor jobs report indicated a slowing economy.
So far, the Republicans who control Congress remain docile supporters of Trump’s latest unilateral adventure. But their ardor may diminish if things go awry, and Trump has been unclear on his intentions.
“There’s an awful lot in play that we can’t anticipate,” the retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, noted Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “These wars just don’t end quickly.”
Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News.