February 27, 2017

President Trump’s Counterterrorism Paradox

By Daniel Heesemann

President Trump kept two aspects of his foreign policy vision consistent throughout the campaign and after the November election. He promises to reduce U.S. intervention into foreign conflicts because “we’re all over the place fighting in areas that we shouldn't be fighting.” He also vows to subdue the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups that threaten the United States. Preventing terrorists from operating in unstable environments and directing attacks elsewhere is a task that, ostensibly, may require U.S. military action. Thus, the president finds himself in a paradoxical situation: How can one honor pledges to draw down military interventions while simultaneously commit to effectively defeating a terrorist group with an extensive global reach? Special operations forces (SOF) units and drones will surely remain key in responding to this threat environment in a way which is congruent with the President’s policies.
 
Long-term, however, this approach won’t work. Both SOF units and the drone program face serious operational and reputational limits after a decade of overuse. Further depleting these resources will damage U.S. counterterrorism capabilities. 
 
President Obama entered office in 2009 with promises similar to President Trump’s in 2017 – eliminating terrorist threats while limiting U.S. involvement in large, protracted conflicts. This so-called “right-sizing” of U.S. military presence in the Middle East increased reliance on SOF troops and drones as counterterrorism tactics. However, ISIS’s 2014 rout of U.S.-trained Iraqi Security Forces as part of its attempt to reestablish the “caliphate” showcased the weakness of this minimalist counterterrorism strategy.

Read the full article at Defense News.

  • Commentary
    • January 20, 2021
    Sharper: Day One

    The Biden-Harris administration will confront a range of national security challenges from the moment it takes office....

    By Chris Estep

  • Commentary
    • The National Interest
    • January 19, 2021
    Could Europe’s INSTEX Help Save the Iran Nuclear Deal?

    Supporting INSTEX would illustrate not only that “America is back,” but that the Biden administration is taking humanitarian concerns seriously without sacrificing security in...

    By ​Francis Shin

  • Commentary
    • December 16, 2020
    Sharper: 2020

    2020 featured an ever-evolving series of national security challenges....

    By Sam Dorshimer, Nathalie Grogan, Emily Jin, Chris Estep & Cole Stevens

  • Reports
    • December 16, 2020
    A New U.S. Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

    Executive Summary Key Proposition Today’s realities demand that the United States change its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its current focus is on high-profile...

    By Ilan Goldenberg, Michael Koplow & Tamara Cofman Wittes

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia