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.

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.

Charles Erlinger
3 weeks 5 days 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.

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

El don de Dios es la sabiduría. Salomón la recibe como un acto misericordioso de Dios.
Juan Luis CalderónJuly 26, 2017
Then ask: Is it a pearl of great price?
Terrance KleinJuly 26, 2017
Courtesy of Sundance Institute.
The people behind “An Inconvenient Truth” can be forgiven for indulging in a bit of “I told you so” in their follow-up film, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.”
John AndersonJuly 26, 2017
Catholic Relief Services delivers seed and farming tools in Central African Republic in 2014. Photo: Kevin Clarke.
The impact of the Trump foreign aid reductions, if enacted, “would be swift, devastating, and felt for years to come, imperiling millions of lives and the course of global development, stability, and partnership.”
Kevin ClarkeJuly 26, 2017