War Without End
When ordering attacks on Iran, President Trump violated principles detailed by a respected General and diplomat about when and how the U.S. should go to war.
Image courtesy of the Smithsonian
On Memorial Day 1991, shortly after America's decisive victory in the first Gulf War, the late General Colin Powell spoke at the Vietnam Veteran Memorial in Washington and articulated what would become the "Powell Doctrine," a set of military principles designed to determine if the nation should enter wars like the one between Israel and Iran.
Before the Pentagon commits American forces to conflicts on foreign soil, said the then chairman of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, it should have clear objectives, marshal overwhelming force, rally broad public and international support, and have a plausible exit strategy from the fighting. None of these principles exist in the war America has entered.
Although almost everyone agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran is a bad idea, the daring air wars launched by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thrust America directly into a Middle East war that could have long-term consequences that go far beyond the vacillating ceasefire that currently prevails.
Just after American B-2 Stealth bombers dropped "bunker busting" bombs on the vital Fodow Iranian nuclear site, President Trump declared the mission a "spectacular military success." So did Netanyahu, Trump's erstwhile ally.
The President's top military officer at the Pentagon, General Dan Caine, was less effusive, saying it would take time to assess any damage. The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran had minimized the impact of the U.S. strikes by moving critical, sensitive equipment to safer harbors in anticipation of the attacks.
All sides in the conflict are now intensifying campaigns in which everyone can claim a face-saving victory to stave off the more threatening consequences of a war that each party helped start. Meanwhile, an anxious world waits to see whether it can avoid a wider regional conflict that could easily spiral out of control.
Underlying the bluster and propaganda on Trump's social media site and the President's captive Fox News network lies a troubling lapse. President Trump's tactics disregarded Powell’s principles, which detail how America should – or should not – go to war.
"War should be the politics of last resort," the widely respected Powell said in 1991in remarks that are as insightful today as they were when he uttered them. "When we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support; we should mobilize the country's resources to fulfill that mission and then go on to win,” said Powell, who chose the venue of the Vietnam Memorial to draw a contrast between the nation's victory in the Gulf War and the humiliating defeat America's armed forces suffered in Vietnam.
Much of the current reporting focuses on questions such as: Did the U.S. disable Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon? Most military observers with Persian expertise say America unquestionably damaged Iran's nuclear capacity. However, few agree with Trump's assessment that America’s campaign eliminated the threat.
Indeed, regardless of how the current phase of the war ends, no bombs can erase the decades of experience Iran gained learning how to enrich uranium needed for a nuclear bomb.
The real question the media should focus on is why Trump and the Pentagon ignored the principles of Powell's Doctrine that spelled out how America could win a sustained victory rather than the limited and uncertain success that now seems in the cards.
A decorated and respected combat veteran who witnessed first-hand the horrors of war in Vietnam, Powell drew on his extensive military and diplomatic expertise to present the nation with an organized set of principles to guide Democratic and Republican leaders when wrestling with the momentous decisions of going to war.
Powell's first principle: Does America have a clear objective when joining the fight? At this juncture, it's unclear whether America -- goaded into the war by Israel -- wanted to disable Iran's nuclear capacity or orchestrate an overthrow of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's powerful but unpopular Supreme Leader. Since the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, a point of pride in the Persian nation, Iranians have rallied in support of a despised theocratic despot.
Powell's second principle: Overwhelm the enemy with superior force. That's questionable, too. American bombs inflicted severe damage to the Iranian enrichment facility at Fordow. Israel bombed Fordow numerous times, but the nuclear enrichment plant is buried deep beneath a mountain, fortified by heavy concrete bunkers impervious to Israeli bombs. At Israel’s request, President Trump unleashed powerful American "bunker-busting" bombs, but the degree of damage they delivered remains unclear.
A third Powell principle stated that Americans should have overwhelming public and international support before engaging the enemy. Little public support exists in America for such a war. Polls suggest more than six in ten Americans oppose American involvement in war with Iran. The idea of America's participation in a war on foreign lands also splits the MAGA base that elected Trump and his Republican allies, who must defend their slim House majority in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Internationally, less support exists for America's unprovoked attack. Russia and China, both of whom stand to benefit significantly from the U.S. action, condemned the U.S. and Israeli strikes. Numerous U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand, have urged restraint.
Lastly, and most significantly, Powell said America should not enter a war without a plausible and credible exit strategy to avoid a protracted conflict like Vietnam. If there's an endgame to America's more muscular entry into war in the Middle East, it's hard to see.
Trump warns America will drop more bombs unless Iran negotiates an end to the nation's nuclear enrichment program. But will Iran genuinely engage in negotiations with a man who deceived them into thinking he was willing to negotiate while secretly plotting to bomb them? They may engage in talks to buy more time, only to return to their nuclear endeavor once the heat dies down.
Moreover, who will replace the widely unpopular religious leader if America successfully deposes him? An alternative leader could be far worse, and Iran now clearly sees the importance of having a nuclear weapon in its arsenal. Israel's second war -- the one in Gaza -- demonstrates the chaos that prevails without a credible exit strategy,
Responding to the October 2023 attack by Hamas, an Iranian proxy force that routinely uses terrorist tactics, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched retaliatory attacks that have killed some 57,800 Gazans so far, and the attacks continue. The goal, according to Netanyahu: Destroy Hamas. Unquestionably, the IDF killed many top Hamas commanders, but most of the victims of the retaliation were civilians, including thousands of women and children.
Many Palestinians hate Hamas for its atrocious tactics. Yet Hamas fights on. It remains the major and, in some cases, the only force to counter Israel's heavy-handed tactics, particularly in the Palestinian territories on the West Bank, where hostile Israelis called settlers routinely attack Palestinians with the full support of Israel's right-wing government.
Technically, the Palestinian Authority is responsible for providing law enforcement and security to West Bank residents. But the authority, in its current form, is notoriously corrupt and ineffective.
A looming question is, what does Netanyahu mean when he vows to destroy Hamas? Is that his exit strategy? Hamas is more than an army in the conventional sense. It is a movement dedicated to fighting Israel. As one shopkeeper in the West Bank town of Nablus told me, "By day, I sell my tea. At night, I join the resistance." Does Netanyahu's vow mean Israel wants to massacre Palestinians and drive them from the land they cherish? If that's an exit strategy, it has disturbing negative parallels to Israel's tragic history.
The Powell Doctrine experienced some ups and downs during the decades since the late general made his infamous 1991 speech. However, history shows that America fared far better when it followed Powell's principles, which evolved from policies adopted initially during the Reagan administration.
A prime example was the first Gulf War, which Powell highlighted in his speech. The doctrine delivered more limited victories during America's military actions in the Balkans and Somalia in the 1990s.
General Powell backed off his doctrine temporarily when he testified before the United Nations in support of the war in Iraq. However, Powell based his testimony on bogus information deliberately falsified by American intelligence sources. Angry at the deception, Powell reiterated his support for the principles of war he laid out in 1991.
Examples of the failure to follow the Powell Doctrine? Iran and Afghanistan.
Hopefully, the ceasefire that President Trump unilaterally announced will last and provide all parties with a face-saving way to end the current phase of the conflict. But Israel's assault and America's bunker-busting bombs probably are simply new chapters in the continuing war that makes the Middle East the Middle East.
—James O’Shea
James O’Shea is a longtime Chicago author and journalist who lives in North Carolina. He is the author of several books, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times, the managing editor of the Chicago Tribune. He is also the former chairman of the board of theMiddle East Broadcasting Networks. Follow Jim’s Substack, Five W’s + H here.
yes indeed. But Powell's remarks strike me as aspirational, an unattainable goal. We're regularly bloodied by an ill-considered rush to war that results in bad and sad unintended consequences. In this case a very smart Israeli politician played a more powerful, but less smart American leader.