After the bombings of the American embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger gave a speech that was titled “The Uses of American Power.” In that speech, Weinberger sought to answer a fundamental question: Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the decision to use military force to protect our interests or carry out our national policy?
In his speech, Weinberger outlined six major tests that should be weighed before committing the use of combat forces abroad. He wanted to prevent the U.S. from entering ambiguous, open-ended quagmires like Vietnam and to stop the casual risking of American lives following the deadly bombing of the Marine barracks.
The six tests became known as the Weinberger Doctrine. They are clearly relevant to the situation that we face today in our involvement in Iran and the Middle East.
First, Weinberger felt the U.S. should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
Second, if we decide the use of combat troops is necessary, we should do so wholeheartedly and with the intention of winning. If we are unwilling or unable to commit the necessary forces and resources to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all.
Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
Fourth, the forces we commit (size, composition and disposition) must be continually reassessed and adjusted as necessary.
Fifth, before committing combat forces abroad, there must be support from Congress and the American people.
And sixth, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, noted foreign policy veteran Kori Schake says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Colin Powell added two more conditions to the six Weinberger espoused — having a clear exit strategy and ensuring international support for any chosen military action. Powell once worked for Weinberger earlier in his career and actually helped Weinberger develop his principles of war.
Schake says Powell’s two additional criteria were designed to restrain civilian leaders from resorting to military force simply to “do something.” Powell, like Weinberger, wanted to ensure military force was rarely employed and that when it was, it was part of a strategy that integrated other elements of national power.
Schake contends President Donald Trump launched a war on Iran without clearly delineated objectives, without consulting Congress or U.S. allies (other than Israel), without obtaining an authorization for the use of military force, without exhausting diplomacy or economic coercion and without an exit strategy.
So, why did Trump decide to attack Iran?
Ivo Daalder, a former NATO ambassador, contends Iran is weaker today than it has been in decades. Its economy is in shambles, its proxies have been decimated by Israel and its allies in Iraq have been ousted. So with that being said, Daalder says it’s hard to make the case that Iran posed enough of a threat to vital U.S. national interests to justify a preventive war.
Regarding Weinberger’s second, third and fourth principles in the case of Iran — having clearly defined objectives, being committed to achieving them and deploying sufficient force to ensure those objectives are met — the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate a commitment to those principles.
One of Trump’s objectives in attacking Iran was regime change. But regime change is hard to achieve by air power alone. And as Daalder points out, Trump had no intention of deploying ground troops to depose the regime in place at the time of the first attack in February. Needless to say, after the ayatollah was killed in the first days of the war, the follow-on regime has turned out to be tougher.
Unfortunately, instead of regime change, Trump’s actions have led to the closing of the Strait of Hormuz — a global economic lifeline. Although virtually every Middle East wargame undertaken over the past 50 years has resulted in a closure of this global choke point, this fact was either forgotten or simply ignored in planning the current action. Needless to say, we have been caught flatfooted with no apparent plan to resolve the situation.
Finally, Weinberger’s final two principles are critical, especially in a democracy. There was no attempt to seek support from Congress. In fact, Trump has ignored Congress completely, despite its constitutional role to declare war. Nor was there any attempt to explain the rationale for going to war to the American public.
Only a third of citizens polled support the U.S. military action in Iran. Roughly 62% disapprove or oppose the conflict. Great presidents have shown the importance of communicating their vision and their reasoning for undertaking a certain action. Trump has failed miserably here.
The result of Trump’s actions is that the U.S. is losing credibility both militarily and diplomatically. Our actions have resulted in Iran attacking our partners in the region. The Houthis have now entered the conflict, thus expanding the fighting into the Red Sea. Ukraine has struck an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea because the ship was carrying military equipment between Russia and Iran. And reporting indicates China is sending Iran hundreds of surface-to-air missiles.
We have “undermined U.S. deterrence and credibility, antagonized America’s allies and delighted its adversaries,” says Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East diplomat.
Or as Oliver Hardy would say to his partner Stan Laurel: “Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!”
Tom Jurkowsky is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy who served on active duty for 31 years. He is the author of the book “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.” He served on the Anne Arundel Community College faculty as an adjunct instructor, where he lectured on current affairs.