The Cato Institute

There’s No Military Solution for Afghanistan

Afghans have endured 40 years of uninterrupted war, and there is no plausible argument that war will soon end…

In a new paper, a former U.S. commander in Afghanistan argues that America’s longest war is unwinnable, in part because Afghanistan is stuck in a cycle of trauma and violence brought about by four decades of uninterrupted conflict.

Erik Goepner, Cato visiting scholar and retired U.S. Air Force colonel whose assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan and Iraq, rigorously analyzed the impact that 40 years of uninterrupted war has had on the population of Afghanistan.

He contends that the country is caught in a vicious cycle whereby war causes trauma, which drives more war. Goepner concludes that there is little America can do to substantially improve the situation in Afghanistan, and recommends America withdraw its military forces. In addition, any future military planning and intelligence estimates should consider the state of a population’s mental health.

In order to statistically measure the level of trauma within the country, Goepner created the “Trauma Index,” which takes into account traumatic events in the form of torture, rape, death, and other atrocities associated with war.

Unsurprisingly, the average Afghan has experienced extremely high-levels of trauma. An Afghan adult has experienced seven traumatic events, on average, compared to one to two for a European and one to three for an American adult. As a result of the trauma caused by persistent and pervasive violence, Afghans have a post-traumatic stress disorder rate of 50 percent, by some estimates.

The mental illness, substance abuse issues, and diminished impulse control that stems from trauma have resulted in an Afghan society in which violence has been normalized. “Making matters worse,” Goepner writes, “Afghans have no real opportunity to receive professional care. Researchers have reported that Afghanistan’s mental health services are ‘nonexistent,’ that there is an ‘acute shortage’ of qualified providers, and that the general situation is one in which ‘chronic mental illness has been left unattended in Afghanistan for decades.’”

Goepner also discusses additional drivers of conflict in the country. He argues that ineffective security forces, low opportunity costs for rebel recruitment, and sanctuary for rebels in neighboring Pakistan create the “opportunity for rebellion,” while grievances against the corrupt and incompetent government and financial incentives from the illicit opium trade provide the motivation to rebel. Goepner contends that for the United States to help the situation in Afghanistan it must remove its military footprint and instead pursue policies that incentivize a more-effective, less-corrupt Afghan government.

Goepner succinctly summarizes the challenges facing Afghanistan, writing that “Thanks to 40 years of uninterrupted war, Afghans suffer from extremely high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses, substance abuse, and diminished impulse control. Research shows that those negative effects make people more violent toward others. As a result, violence can become normalized as a legitimate means of problem solving and goal achievement, and that appears to have fueled Afghanistan’s endless war. Thus, Afghanistan will be difficult, if not impossible, to fix.”

Learn more…

North Korea & How to Avoid (Potentially Nuclear) Catastrophe

U.S. military action is no solution for the North Korean crisis…

President Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack North Korea, but even limited military engagement in North Korea would escalate to unacceptable losses of life.

Although President Trump and Kim Jong-un are set to meet this summer, the Trump administration has regularly shown that it considers military action a viable option if it is unsatisfied with diplomatic efforts. 

But, any attempts to use force to denuclearize North Korea would likely spiral out of control and lead to mass casualties. Absent a clear, imminent threat, diplomacy is consequently the only viable U.S. strategy in the region.

Although U.S. policymakers seek to rid the Kim regime of its nuclear weapons, the Trump administration has few viable options. Kim views his nuclear capability as a critical deterrent. U.S. attempts to forcibly deprive the regime of its nukes could lead to escalation, with North Korea feeling a compulsion to strike first in a “use it or lose it” scenario.

In fact, in such a delicate situation, almost any U.S. military action would likely trigger full-scale war. A limited surgical strike designed to target North Korea’s nuclear arsenal would not likely be sufficient, as the locations of all North Korea’s nukes are not known and some assets are likely buried deep underground. Even an operation aimed at taking out North Korea leadership would not prevent a war from erupting, given that artillery squads threatening Seoul have orders to fire on the city “without orders from above” in the event of a U.S. attack.

Such an escalation would be devastating, given that roughly 26 million people live in the Seoul metropolitan area, leaving them vulnerable to artillery, Scud missiles, and biological weapons, not to mention a nuclear strike. Even a conventional artillery barrage could cause tens of thousands of deaths within hours. North Korea could also target South Korea’s nuclear power plants, causing major casualties as a result of fallout. Other potential targets include the Yongsan Garrison, where the U.S. Army keeps its Korean headquarters and 26,000 Americans live, as well as Guam and Tokyo.

A full-on war would be even more counterproductive for U.S. interests. The buildup to such a war would be hard to disguise, thus serving as a visible signal for Pyongyang to strike first. Although the U.S. military and South Korea’s military are more than a match for North Korea’s, such a war would be immensely costly and bloody. There is a high danger of such a war spilling out into Russia, China, and other nations, particularly if nuclear weapons are used. 

The economic costs of such a war would also be staggering. Washington would face extraordinary pressure to underwrite occupation and finance reconstruction across the entire battle zone, with the United States’ share of the burden potentially reaching trillions of dollars.

Instead of considering military options, U.S. policymakers to make serious efforts to open diplomatic channels with the North. Direct and normalized communication would go a long way toward stepping away from the brink, particularly given that the U.S. and North Korea both have heads of state given to brashness. 

The United States should also hold serious discussions with China. Possible confidence-building measures include offering aid for refugees, accepting possible Chinese military intervention in the aftermath of a North Korean collapse, as well as guaranteeing that U.S. forces would leave a reunited peninsula. Once tensions ease, the U.S. should reconsider its military alliance with South Korea, which now has a well-developed military capable of protecting the country on its own.

In other words, the United States should follow the same strategy it did with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, avoiding preventive strikes in favor of containment and deterrence. 

There are risks to containing and deterring North Korea, but they pale beside the costs of plunging the peninsula into the abyss of war.

Learn more…

The Forgotten Anniversary: September 14th, 2001

After 16 years of war, it’s time to reckon with the less-appreciated anniversary of September 14, 2001, when Congress gave the President a relatively open-ended power to make war…

Over the last decade and a half, we’ve heard over and over again that “September 11th changed everything”—but maybe September 14 was the pivotal date. 

Sixteen years ago today, Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Aimed at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and those who “harbored” or “aided” them, the AUMF has been transformed into an enabling act for globe-spanning presidential war.  

Two-thirds of the House members who voted for the 2001 AUMF and three quarters of the Senate are no longer in Congress today. But judging by what they said at the time, the legislators who passed it didn’t think they were committing the US to an open-ended, multigenerational war; they thought they were targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Undeclared wars and drive-by bombing raids were hardly unknown before 9/11. But most of the military excursions of the post-Cold War era were geographically limited, temporary departures from a baseline of peace.

Barack Obama left office as the first two-term president in American history to have been at war every single day of his presidency. In his last year alone, U.S. forces dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven different countries. Seven months into his presidency, Donald Trump has almost certainly passed Obama’s 2016 tally already — all under the auspices of the AUMF.

The AUMF Congress passed in 2001 still serves as legal cover for current wars we fight in seven countries. War is now America’s default setting; peace, the dwindling exception to the rule.

Learn More…

We Cannot “Win” in Afghanistan

President Trump’s Afghanistan strategy ignores the evidence amassed over 16 hard-fought years. There will be no winning for the U.S. in Afghanistan…

President Trump campaigned on a platform of pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. That no longer seems to be on the table. 

On Monday night, President Trump informed the nation that he is escalating America’s war in Afghanistan. That means that our longest war will continue for at least four more years, and likely longer. It also means that more Americans will be sent across the globe to fight — and die — in the pursuit of unclear objectives, and in a conflict that is not vital to U.S. national security.

While specifics about the new strategy are sketchy, it seems to be more of the same, and more of the same will not improve reality in Afghanistan; it may, in fact, make things worse. 

Trump assured Americans that he had the strategy for “winning,” but his strategy looked a lot like one that previous battlefield commanders have suggested is sorely wanting.

Trump’s “winning” rhetoric, like that of previous administrations, makes it sound as though this is America’s war to win or lose. It is not.

The failure of the Afghan government and security forces is, primarily, a failure of Afghans. The U.S. can adjust its strategy as often as it would like, but Americans should not expect substantially different outcomes until Afghans find their own way.

Despite invading two countries, toppling three regimes and conducting military strikes in seven nations, the estimated number of Islamist-inspired terrorists has grown from approximately 32,000 before initiation of the war on terror to 109,000 now.

That is an argument to end America’s involvement in Afghanistan’s civil war, not for more of the same.

President Trump’s new strategy ignores the evidence amassed over 16 hard-fought years, and, as a result, more American lives and resources will be lost as this unnecessary war continues. There will be no winning for the U.S. in Afghanistan.

Learn More…

The Situation in Syria is Bleak. Let’s Not Make It Worse

Bombing Syria doesn’t provide humanitarian relief. It’s also unconstitutional and violates international law…

Last night, President Trump  ordered a missile strike on an airfield in Syria believed to be the base for the chemical weapons attack earlier in the week. 

Hurling 50 Tomahawk missiles at a single military base does not fundamentally undermine the Assad regime’s ability to harm its own people, and it has zero chance of altering the military and political realities on the ground. It is merely a symbolic gesture intended to deter further use of chemical weapons.

Bashar Assad regime’s most recent chemical weapons attack in Idlib province killed dozens of people and injured many more. It was a cynical and desperate move by a regime that has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the world. But the attack was also our first opportunity to see what the Trump administration would do in response to such a situation. 

Sometimes the United States can and should act, as it often does in response to earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters. But many problems—like the civil war in Syria—are beyond America’s ability to solve.

Unfortunately, explaining the decision to do nothing is never easy, especially in the face of tragedies like Syria or the rampant fears stoked by acts of terrorism at home and abroad. 

Too many U.S. critics of Assad tend to see the Syrian civil war as a political melodrama, featuring the Syrian dictator as an archvillain and his adversaries as noble freedom fighters seeking a better, more democratic Iraq. The reality is far more complex and murky. Assad is assuredly an odious ruler, but most of his opponents are hardly admirable pro-democracy advocates. Other than ISIS, the strongest faction consists of the Nusra Front (until recently, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate) and other allied Islamist groups. Washington’s vain search for a strong “moderate” Syrian rebel force has persisted for years, but frequently borders on being a farce.

With his decision to launch missile strikes against an airfield in Syria, President Donald Trump has apparently learned a lesson that eventually dawns on all American presidents, especially in the post-Cold War era: with great power comes great responsibility.

Trump’s repeated invocation of the doctrine “America First,” coupled with his past vocal opposition to getting involved in the Syrian Civil War, suggested that he would not be swayed by those who insist upon “doing something” when little really can be done. 

Cato scholars have long warned against U.S. military intervention in Syria. There is no U.S. military solution to the Syrian conflict, and the options that do exist risk exacerbating regional insecurity and humanitarian strife and would require a massive commitment in blood and treasure that the American people seem unprepared to tolerate.

The question is whether President Trump, in the face of all this uncertainty, will be able to resist the temptation to escalate. If he succumbs, Americans could find themselves sucked into yet another elective military quagmire in the Middle East.

Learn more….

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama Leaves a Legacy of War

President Obama will leave office as the first two-term president in American history to have been at war every day of his presidency, having dropped over 25,000 bombs on seven countries in 2016 alone….

As a young state senator in 2002, Obama gave an antiwar rally speech railing against the “dumb,” “rash” rush to war in Iraq. As a presidential candidate five years later, he promised to “turn the page on the imperial presidency” and usher in “a new dawn of peace.” In a speech to US troops last month, he denounced the “false promise” that “we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs,” and piously proclaimed that “democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war.”

And yet, 2008’s “peace candidate” has launched two undeclared wars (in Libya and against ISIS), ordered 10 times as many drone strikes as George W. Bush — including the remote-control execution of an American citizen, and, this summer, bombed six different countries just over Labor Day weekend.

By the time Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, he’d already launched more drone strikes than “war president” Bush managed during his two terms. 

It is Obama who is largely responsible for warping the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—passed three days after 9/11 to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban—into an enabling act for endless war, anywhere in the world.

Where Bush secured congressional authorization for the two major wars he fought, Obama made perpetual warfare the new normal, and the president the ultimate “decider” in matters of war and peace.

Alas, political tribalism warps people’s perceptions of basic reality, convincing partisans they’re entitled to their own facts.

Even during the heyday of resistance to the Vietnam War, the criticism became more intense after Republican Richard Nixon took over the White House than it had been under Democrat Lyndon Johnson. There was far more criticism of Republican George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War than there was of Democrat Bill Clinton’s wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (a distressing number of prominent liberals even found reasons to praise Clinton’s military crusades in the Balkans).

Left-wing groups mounted a fairly serious effort to thwart Republican Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But when Democrat Obama escalated U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and led a NATO assault to remove Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi from power, the reaction was very different.  Except for a few hard-left organizations, the sounds coming from the usual supposed anti-war liberal quarters were those of crickets. Likewise, there has been little push-back to Obama’s gradual return of the U.S. military presence in Iraq or the entanglement of the U.S. military in Syria.

With Trump’s inauguration near, Obama has described the transfer of presidential power as ”a relay race” where he’ll pass the baton to his successor. In private, he’s occasionally used a more ominous metaphor: leaving “a loaded weapon” behind for the next president.

And, now, Obama will pass that weapon on to Donald J. Trump, a man he’s flatly declared “unfit” for the office — someone who can’t be trusted with a Twitter account, let alone the nuclear launch codes.

Learn more….

Is China the Fix to North Korea’s Nuclear Obsession?

The increasingly unpredictable and confrontational regime in North Korea continues to develop its nuclear weapons capability and launch a series of provocative missile tests. The traditional carrot-and-stick approach of ratcheting up sanctions while holding out the option of diplomatic engagement has failed. Policymakers in Washington need a new direction…

In his new study, Will China Solve the North Korea Problem?, Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow argues that, in order to solve the world’s most dangerous flashpoint, Washington must persuade China to use its leverage over North Korea and back an allied denuclearization deal.

China is North Korea’s only ally, most important trading partner, and provides the North with up to 90 percent of its energy, 80 percent of its consumer goods, and 45 percent of its food supply. Only with China’s full cooperation can economic pressure on Pyongyang be effective.

The challenge is convincing Beijing that it is in China’s interest to solve the North Korea problem. In order to do that, the U.S. must reassure the People’s Republic on several strategic fronts. First, one of the primary reasons China continues to prop up the North Korean regime is to maintain a buffer state between Chinese territory and a strong U.S. security ally in which tens of thousands of U.S. troops are based. Washington should make clear to Beijing its intention to disengage militarily once the Korean problem is solved.

Next, the U.S. should work with South Korea and Japan to develop a comprehensive offer to the North that takes China’s strategic concerns into account. The offer should include a peace treaty, denuclearization, diplomatic recognition, end of sanctions, participation in international agencies and forums, economic aid, removal of U.S. troops from the South, increased inter-Korean contacts, and discussion of reunification.

If these compromises fail to impel China to pressure the North, Washington should indicate that further expansion of Pyongyang’ s atomic arsenal may lead to proliferation in Japan and South Korea. But China sees proliferation in North Korea, never mind South Korea and Japan, as harmful to its interests, so there is hope for further cooperation.

Sanctions, international isolation, and occasional diplomatic negotiations with North Korea have failed to moderate the regime or to solve the decades-long stalemate on the Korean Peninsula. The key to success is China, but the United States must be willing to think outside the box to incentivize serious cooperation from Beijing.

“The incoming Trump administration appears ready to begin its relations with China on a confrontational note, threatening a trade war and upending four decades of dealings with Taiwan,” Bandow says. “Yet Washington and Beijing have shared interests, including keeping the Korean peninsula non-nuclear. However, winning China’s cooperation will require compromise. If President Donald Trump follows his predecessor in simply demanding Beijing’s assistance, he is likely to get the same result: failure.”

Read the study…

Remembering the Anti-War Movement

47 years ago today, the largest anti-war protest in American history took place…

On November 15, 1969, over 250,000 Americans gathered peacefully in Washington D.C. to call for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.

Almost five decades later, U.S. forces are engaged in active conflict in at least 6 countries, ranging from the well-known (Iraq; Afghanistan) to the largely invisible (Somalia; Yemen). Between January and March 2015, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to over 80 countries. Although many of these deployments focused on training exercises or advisory roles, it is an astounding measure of the scope of the U.S. military’s involvement around the world. 

What happened to the anti-war movement?

The public often seems blissfully unaware of America’s wars, reflecting a blurring of the line between war and peace. However, the sentiments behind that historic protest carry on today, though partisanship sometimes colors how passionate Americans are about ending needless wars…

Read on….

Fabricated Myths about War

“Americans rarely see the horror and savagery of the wars being fought in their name. The public—right or wrong—could care less about war; and our military and political elites have incentives for withholding the realities of war from the public.”

What War Does to Our Society

“Assessments of war should go beyond critiques of its political and geostrategic ramifications; they should also extend to the various ways that war affects our society and public more generally.”

PODCAST: Partisanship and Anti-War Sentiment

“Where did the anti-war movement go?”

How Partisanship Killed the Anti-War Movement

“What lessons can be learned from the collapse of the post-9/11 anti-war movement?”

VIDEO: Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism

“Conservatives love war, empire, and the military-industrial complex. They abhor peace, the sole and rightful property of liberals. Right? Wrong.”

Why Are FBI Agents Trammeling the Rights of Antiwar Activists?

“The FBI’s surveillance of antiwar activists dates back to at least World War I…No FBI agent or manager has ever been fired or prosecuted for violating the constitutional rights of those individuals or groups wrongly surveilled, harassed or charged.”

Don’t Make Women Register for the Draft. Just End Draft Registration for Everyone.

“When it comes to the draft, or any lingering vestige of it, it’s time for Congress to end it, not mend it.”

Isolationist or Imperialist?

“On foreign policy, Trump’s statements throughout the campaign have been profoundly incoherent, ranging from more traditional hawkish Republican views on issues like the Iran deal, to more unorthodox, restrained views on Syria and other Middle Eastern conflicts, to his more conciliatory approach to Russia and truly bizarre fixation with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.So what comes next?”

Donald Trump Is about to Become America’s President. Here’s What His Foreign Policy Should Be.

“Trump has an opportunity to dramatically reshape a conventional wisdom that has consistently failed America.”

Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role

“America’s foreign policy cannot simply rely on the business-as-usual policies that have sustained us in recent years. Instead, the country must look to alternative approaches to foreign policy, many of which are better suited to dealing with the complexities of the 21st century.”

The Problem with Obama’s Light Footprint

In a new analysis, Brad Stapleton critiques Obama’s light footprint approach to military intervention, arguing it adjusts tactics instead of strategy….

 In The Problem with the Light Footprint: Shifting Tactics in Lieu of Strategy, Stapleton argues that President Obama’s effort to avoid becoming embroiled in another conventional ground war by adopting a “light footprint” approach to military intervention is fundamentally flawed.

The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have made Americans extremely wary of embarking upon new foreign military adventures. Unfortunately, Obama has continued to pursue the George W. Bush administration’s goals of defeating terrorism and promoting democratization abroad through military force.

Yet those strategic objectives are unlikely to be secured militarily—with either a heavy or light footprint. Although airstrikes and Special Forces raids may be useful for toppling dictators and decapitating terrorist hierarchies, they contribute little toward the realization of larger political objectives such as the eradication of radical Islamic terrorism or the democratization of the greater Middle East.

In March 2011, Obama authorized U.S. participation in a NATO bombing campaign against Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Libya, a prime example of the light footprint approach. The humanitarian mission soon morphed into regime change, and when Islamic extremists filled the power vacuum left in the wake of the Qaddafi regime, the administration in September 2014 announced a new “systematic campaign of airstrikes’ as to destroy ISIS. Overall, the results of Obama’s interventions in Libya have not served U.S. interests.

Another example of the light footprint approach has been the administration’s reliance on drone strikes. While drone strikes, especially in the northwest region of Pakistan, have decimated the hierarchy of al Qaeda and its affiliates, there are drawbacks as well. As numerous critics have suggested, the U.S. drone program could actually undermine the campaign to eradicate terrorism by engendering anti-American resentment.

The United States needs a new strategy, not just new tactics. Rather than attempting to defeat terrorism abroad, the U.S. should focus on improving intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to mitigate the threat of terrorist attacks at home. And rather than attempting to catalyze democratization with military force, the U.S. should pressure authoritarian regimes to introduce gradual liberal reforms—so that when those countries do eventually democratize, those transitions are more likely to endure.

In short, the United States should adopt a less militaristic strategy. Recognizing the inherent limits of what military action can achieve should lead to a gradualist strategic approach that mitigates the terrorist threat instead of eradicating it, and encourages democracy instead of imposing it through military force.

Read the paper…

Responding to Terrorist Attacks in Brussels

On Tuesday, March 22nd, just four days after Salah Abdeslam, the mastermind of last fall’s Paris attacks, was finally captured, the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for brutal terrorist attacks in Brussels. The attacks, which killed more than 30 and wounded almost 200, provide another chilling reminder of how dangerous the world can be.

In response, both Europe and the United States are likely to ratchet up the war on the ground against ISIS. But, to date this approach has borne decidedly mixed fruit. On the one hand, ISIS has certainly lost significant ground over the past year. On the other hand, very little of that success can be traced directly to U.S. or French military efforts.

Rather than go through the motions focused on short-term political gains, both Europe and the United States should pursue a strategy that is likely to have hugely beneficial long-term effects as far as securing us from the minor but real threat of terrorism.

Learn more…

• “Responding to Brussels,” by A. Trevor Thrall
• “Resisting the Terrorists,“ by Michael D. Tanner
• “Immense Fear over a Limited Threat to Americans,” by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart
• “Terrorism in the American Psyche,” by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart
• “No, Mass Surveillance Won’t Stop Terrorist Attacks,” by Patrick G. Eddington