Opinions

Troops in the Mideast Keep Terror Away


A U.S. soldier stands in a newly installed position in Manbij, Syria, April 4, 2018.

A U.S. soldier stands in a newly installed position in Manbij, Syria, April 4, 2018.


Photo:

Hussein Malla/Associated Press

Isolationism is attractive in theory when it comes to the Middle East. As the narrative goes, America leaves terrorist groups alone to fight in far-off lands like Syria and Afghanistan, and focuses on what matters at home. Isolationism appeals to a sense of humility, giving us the moral high ground by purporting to care about what matters most: home.

But if we care about what matters at home, we must recognize that “far-off lands” no longer exist. An ISIS terrorist can reach American soil after a 12-hour flight. Ideology travels even faster, weaponizing the internet to influence vulnerable Americans and resulting in attacks like San Bernardino in 2015 and Orlando in 2016. The world has become a small, interconnected place, and America ignores it at our peril.

Isolationists presume that enemies like al Qaeda and ISIS want to harm the U.S. because of its military presence in the Middle East. While some fighters are nonideological opportunists, many are not. Islamic fundamentalists have planned attacks on the U.S. and Europe ever since the extreme sects of Wahhabi Islam began teaching hatred of the West and promoting Jihad. These jihadists—thousands of them—wake up every morning dreaming of ways to attack Americans. The reasonable troop levels the U.S. maintains in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria ensure that American forces fight terror abroad rather than waiting for it to reach our shores. These deployments are an insurance policy for American security.

These troops are not victims. They are volunteer soldiers, part of America’s warrior class, who believe in what they are fighting for. They have seen the true nature of this enemy and know it cannot be wooed into submission by simply leaving it alone.

Since 9/11, American foreign policy has oscillated between large surges in troop deployments and the dangerous promise of “bringing the troops home.” The Trump administration has thus far found the right balance, focusing on achievable goals while maintaining a strategic and limited presence. This presence serves three crucial roles: The troops maintain pressure on the enemy so as not to allow them the time and space to plan attacks, they train and equip allies to take over the fight eventually, and they collect vital intelligence to prevent future attacks.

With these objectives in mind, we expressed grave concern when the Trump administration announced plans to remove U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, repeating the mistake of President Obama with his 2011 removal of troops from Iraq. A withdrawal from Syria would grant ISIS the opportunity to regroup, while also leaving U.S. allies ill-prepared and underequipped. The debate about troop levels has been hampered by flawed ideas about mission success. Americans are accustomed to thinking that wars end after a clearly defined enemy has been territorially defeated. Yet today the U.S. faces a decentralized insurgency strung together by ideology. There is no treaty to be brokered, no head of state to negotiate with.

Honesty about the definition of mission success is crucial. If mission success means totally defeating ISIS and its ideology, America has not yet done that. If it means building the capacity of allies to fight the enemy, that hasn’t been done either. In truth, mission success in the Middle East means preventing another 9/11. America’s troops risk everything to take the fight to the enemy so that the enemy cannot bring the fight here.

The recent decision to maintain a limited contingent of U.S. forces in Syria to support international peacekeeping forces was a welcome policy adjustment, and should be applauded. To that end, we strongly urge the president to maintain an appropriate military presence in both Syria and Afghanistan. The disastrous consequences of a premature and precipitous withdrawal haunted the previous administration, and America cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

Messrs. Crenshaw and Gallagher, both Republicans, represent Texas’ Second and Wisconsin’s Eighth congressional districts, respectively.



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.