If wars were won by bombastic press conferences, the White House should already be planning another military parade in our capital’s streets. In America’s latest war of choice, President Trump’s Secretary of War is emerging as the head cheerleader for our misadventure in Iran. Mr. Hegseth has already mistakenly defined what constitutes victory: the destruction of various arms of the Iranian military and military production. Unfortunately, his definition is flawed. Despite possessing some military experience as a junior officer, he has shown that he is completely out of his depth. For all intents and purposes, the war with Iran might have been lost before the first missile was launched.
Some of the lessons that Mr. Hegseth should have learned by now:
Operational excellence is not a guarantee of strategic success. The best military on the planet cannot win a war if the national strategic objectives selected by the National Command Authority are faulty. This fact was proven in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which, like Iran, were wars of choice and not necessity. Does Mr. Hegseth grasp the gap between his definition of victory and that of his boss?
Mr. Trump has demanded “unconditional surrender” of Iran. That choice could cost many lives. America demanded unconditional surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The word “unconditional” suggests that there will be no negotiated settlement. The only means of achieving that objective in Germany and Japan was first a land invasion of the “Fatherland,” followed by the deployment of two atomic bombs. Is this where we are heading?
The best bosses remain always open to bad news. If the boss always demands good news, good news is all that his subordinates will present to him. Mr. Hegseth only wants to focus on the number of strikes, the number of aircraft involved, and the number of targets destroyed. These figures no doubt please this Oval Office. Tragically, war by the numbers was a loser in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The numbers say nothing about an enemy’s will to resist. The senior uniformed staff in the Pentagon all know this. A smarter press corps would be asking what the US strategy is if Iran’s military is destroyed and the mullahs simply refuse to surrender.
Air strikes often harden the resistance of your adversary. Every American military commander knows that bombing alone cannot force an enemy to give up. In fact, strikes from the air are proven to do the reverse based on our conventional non-nuclear bombing experience in WWII and the protracted bombing campaign in the Vietnam War.
It may take only one side to start a war, but it always demands two to end it. Iran’s willingness to continue battling both Israeli and US forces, regardless of losses, again, was a consequence foreseeable by America’s intelligence agencies, assuming anyone was listening to the experts. Trump and Hegseth are viewing time as though they are looking at their watches; Iran’s leadership is looking at a calendar. Time is on the side of Tehran.
As every sailor knows, if you fail to chart a course, all winds are foul. Mr. Trump, Mr. Hegseth, and Mr. Rubio can’t seem to agree on the conflict’s objectives. Unconditional surrender, for example, cannot be achieved by air power. Nor can air power alone compel the regime to give up its nuclear ambitions. Better makeup and camera angles won’t result in successful Pentagon war-fighting strategies. I would only remind all concerned that America won every battle in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All three conflicts ended in strategic defeats. The White House’s selected objectives in these wars were, like what we are seeing today with Iran, amorphous.
The enemy always gets a vote. Even though America and Israel possess overwhelming military might, that alone cannot force capitulation. The Iranians have successfully shut the Strait of Hormuz; maintained attacks on the affiliated Gulf States; struck targets in Israel; appointed replacements for their dead military and political-religious leadership; encouraged proxies to join the battle, Hezbollah in Lebanon; and have sworn to continue the fight. All these actions and many more were perfectly predictable by American intelligence agencies, which is why past US chief executives wisely chose to avoid utilizing the military option.
Finally, a national war-fighting strategy that lacks an achievable end state is no strategy at all. Mr. Hegseth, like his failed predecessors McNamara and Rumsfeld, will eventually learn some lessons the hard way, but lots of blood, treasure, and American prestige are being squandered in the meantime. At the estimated current cost of one billion dollars a day, and without a serious reconsideration of objectives, including a defined, feasible end state, the war with Iran may already be a strategic loss.
The only winner I can currently see is Israel.
With special thanks to Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Timothy Grimmett. Author Robert Bruce Adolph, a qualified Military Strategist, is a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier. He holds graduate degrees in both National Security Studies & International Affairs and was formally trained as a counterintelligence special agent. Robert also taught university level courses in American Government, US History, and World Politics. Following his retirement from the active military, he joined the UN, subsequently seeing service in Sierra Leone, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia and more, culminating in the role of Chief of the Middle East and North Africa at UN Headquarters in New York. He is a member of The Steady State.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.
When Taco blames our allies for the loss of Hormuz, he knows he has lost. He never, never takes responsibility for his stupidity. Notice the new noise he is going to wind it down. His polls have tanked. Taco is toast!
Thank you
I’m so concerned about the potential for massive casualties….