Projecting U.S. power will be complicated for next president

Making New Year’s predictions is tricky in this turbulent world, but here’s one fairly safe bet: The next president will propose a more assertive U.S. foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has often sounded nearly as hawkish about use of military force as the Republican contenders.

But what would a new American assertiveness mean, in practical terms? What can U.S. military power do, realistically, to combat the Islamic State and other threats more effectively? How can China and Russia be checked militarily? The rhetoric of American power will be flexed during the campaign, but what about the substance? Projecting power will be harder than many candidates seem to realize.

The first reality check for a new president will be the Pentagon. This generation of military leaders has been through traumatic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve cautioned President Obama about the potential cost in lives and money of new commitments in the Middle East, and they’ll do the same with the next commander in chief. If you want to hear arguments against deploying a big U.S. ground force in Syria, just ask a general.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

Half-baked ideas about projecting power aren’t likely to survive long in a new administration. There will be continuity in military advice, given that Gen. Joe Dunford and Gen. Paul Selva likely will remain into 2017 as chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively. A new roster of combatant commanders, including the CENTCOM chief who will oversee the Middle East, will be appointed by Obama before he leaves office.

My guess is that before Obama departs, he will adopt some of the more aggressive military options he has been resisting, such as “safe zones” inside Syria and more aggressive deployment of U.S. special forces. That’s partly because the U.S. is likely to face more jihadist-inspired terror attacks in 2016 — increasing public pressure on the president to retaliate. A weak White House response, among other things, would undermine the Democratic candidate’s chances.

If the U.S. may be compelled by circumstances to escalate its tactics against the Islamic State, there’s an argument for doing so sooner rather than later — so as to maintain better control of American military actions and not be forced by a panicky public into overreaction. The next president will also want to control options after the inauguration rather than be a prisoner of events — adding to the likelihood of early requests to the Pentagon for new military options.

The Middle East will remain a military muddle for the next president, as it has so often been for the last two. But in dealing with China and Russia, the next administration will have clearer choices about projecting military power. The next White House will also face less resistance on these fronts from military commanders, who are well-schooled in the Russian and Chinese threats and believe they have the military tools needed to confront them.

To contain Russia, the next administration will probably examine whether to deploy U.S. forces in Eastern Europe, as a tripwire against Moscow’s aggression. That move would likely have Pentagon support. The military would also welcome more active moves to contain China’s actions in the South China Sea, including closer cooperation with allies such as Japan and the Philippines, which are bolstering their own defenses.

The trickiest military questions for the next president will involve what strategist Michael Mazarr calls “gray-zone conflicts.” In a recent article published by the U.S. Army War College, Mazarr argues that China, Russia and Iran have been using these “gray” strategies to frustrate U.S. goals without openly committing military force.

U.S. adversaries exploit power gaps. It’s easier for Russia to invade Ukraine with irregular forces out of uniform, the so-called “little green men,” than to send a conventional army that would challenge NATO. It’s easier for China to assert its maritime power by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea than by defying the U.S. Pacific Fleet with an aircraft carrier. It’s easier for Iran to send Lebanese and Iraqi Shiite militias to Syria than to commit its own military directly.

The Pentagon mostly buys weapons for black-and-white conflicts, rather than gray ones. So it isn’t well-prepared for such “hybrid” approaches.

Campaign rhetoric about more military spending and a tougher defense posture could deepen this problem — if it simply leads the next president to bolster existing forces. A genuinely assertive strategy would create new tools that can function better in the gray of future conflict.

David Ignatius’ email address is davidignatius@washpost.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, May 30

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

The Buzz: On the menu: tacos, tainted lettuce, free-range ostrich

While Trump was enjoying TACO Tuesday, RFK Jr. had his eye on a wobble of bird flu-stricken ostriches.

Schwab: We’re witnesses to a new China syndrome

What’s melting down now, with America’s retreat from the world, is our standing and economic influence.

If you need a permit to purchase a gun, how about for voting?

Gov. Bob Ferguson signed House Bill 1163 into law requiring, among other… Continue reading

Trump agenda: Walls, dome and ‘Fortress America’

I’ve been looking at what this administration has been trying to accomplish… Continue reading

GOP budget bill will hurt children, seniors, others

I’m outraged that the House has passed their reconciliation bill that deepens… Continue reading

Solar panels are visible along the rooftop of the Crisp family home on Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: ‘Big, beautiful bill’ would take from our climate, too

Along with cuts to the social safety net, the bill robs investments in the clean energy economy.

A Lakewood Middle School eighth-grader (right) consults with Herald Opinion Editor Jon Bauer about the opinion essay he was writing for a class assignment. (Kristina Courtnage Bowman / Lakewood School District)
Youth Forum: Just what are those kids thinking?

A sample of opinion essays written by Lakewood Middle School eighth-graders as a class assignment.

A visitor takes in the view of Twin Lakes from a second floor unit at Housing Hope’s Twin Lakes Landing II Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2023, in Marysville, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Housing Hope’s ‘Stone Soup’ recipe for community

With homelessness growing among seniors, an advocate calls for support of the nonprofit’s projects.

Comment: DOGE has failed; federal spending has only increased

Apart from some high-profile program eliminations, its cuts haven’t kept pace with other spending.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, May 29

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Make your opposition to Congress’ budget bill known

Cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, as passed recently in the House will… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.