Donald Trump should be making more decisions in the military

A military aide, carrying the "football" containing launch codes for nuclear weapons, accompanies U.S. President Donald Trump. (CNS photo/Kevin Lamarque, Reuters)

Donald J. Trump said on the campaign trail that the generals “don’t know much because they’re not winning.” But as president, he has given these generals “total authorization” to carry out the United States’ wars. In June the Pentagon quietly announced that President Trump had delegated to Secretary of Defense James Mattis authority to send thousands of American troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban has regained the initiative and threatens the survival of the U.S.-backed government of Ashraf Ghani. This followed a decision in April to allow the Pentagon to set troop levels in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Those who distrust the president’s temperament and judgment may be relieved that Mr. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general who enjoys widespread bipartisan support, is giving the orders on the battlefield. It would be imprudent, however, to so quickly disregard the United States’ tradition of having civilians in control of the military.

Advertisement

There is a difference between the delegation of duties and an abdication of responsibility. Generals who welcome a longer leash after years of what some considered to be micromanagement under the Obama administration would do well to recall Mr. Trump’s lashing out at his own Justice Department when things were not going his way in the courts. How might this detached and impulsive president react to a botched operation or failure to turn around a war that, in the words of General Mattis, we are “not winning”?

More important, no amount of flexibility on the ground can replace an achievable strategy. Any credible strategy for even partial victory in Afghanistan will require coordination between agencies and the buy-in of the American people—both of which fall under the purview of the president. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that our commander in chief, like the Congress and the country he leads, takes seriously his duty to provide civilian oversight of military operations.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Charles Erlinger
1 year 2 months ago

The discussion in this editorial leaves unclarified the policy objective that any strategy would be expected to achieve. The discussion about which branch of government should make which decisions with regard to strategy presupposes that the desired end-state is well enough understood so that the constitutionality and, indeed, the feasibility of any proposed strategy can be evaluated. If the editors understand it, please explain it.

Advertisement

The latest from america

iStock/Duncan_Andison
What I've learned from more than 50 years in service of the church.
John CarrSeptember 25, 2018
"Rome nominates, the pope nominates. That is clear!”
Gerard O’ConnellSeptember 25, 2018
“I have never, never given a pardon on a conviction.”
Gerard O’ConnellSeptember 25, 2018
Young adults are ready and willing to take on responsibility for and within the church. And many already have.
Cecilia González-AndrieuSeptember 25, 2018