The United States is a nation at war. But for much of the past two decades, a great deal of the Pentagon’s overseas activities would not technically classify as combat, with all its attendant logistical trappings and legal tango. In fact, much of this activity receives rather benign categories: “building partner capacity”; “Light footprint” ; or “Assisting or accompanying,” like a maiden aunt chaperoning a young couple to a dance. But from the ground, some of this stuff still looks an awful lot like combat. If America romanticizes warfare, it idealizes much of what the Pentagon calls “military operations other than war.”
In response to the deaths of four U.S. soldiers in Niger in early October, Senators Lindsey Graham and Bob Casey, standing in for many of us, expressed surprisethat the U.S. military was even present in the country. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt: What they really meant was that they were not aware they needed to worry about the presence of U.S. troops in Niger. Spoiler alert: they did. The post 9/11 wars have launched a multitude of well-intentioned, but deceptively risky activities intended to increase global security on the cheap. In the process, political oversight, and potential for success, may have been shortchanged too.
While there’s nothing particularly new about the fact that America is helping build the capacity of more than 100 foreign militaries, this approach has grown more popular—and for good reason: It’s seen as a sweet deal. The United States has spent billions (versus potential trillions) on this “indirect approach,” working by, with, and through, foreign partners in innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint efforts to achieve its security objectives. It has trained, advised, assisted, sometimes accompanied, and enabled. While it has generated a cornucopia of terminology, it has failed to confront the fact that, in truth, many of these activities constitute a low-key means of achieving the outcomes of a major military intervention without the requisite investment of blood, treasure, and political capital that comes with formal declarations of war—or attention to risk.
Read the full op-ed in The Atlantic.
More from CNAS
VideoNational Guard offers signing bonus amid recruitment hurdles
Military readiness expert Kate Kuzminski speaks to NewsNation about the effects that today's recruiting challenge will have on future readiness. Watch the full interview from...
By Katherine L. Kuzminski
VideoU.S. military facing biggest recruiting shortfall in decades
The U.S. military is facing a recruiting shortfall, with officials saying there are not enough people signing up to serve. Katherine Kuzminski, Senior Fellow and Director of t...
By Katherine L. Kuzminski
CommentaryOverturning Roe: What Might This Mean for Military Culture?
With the repeal of Roe, women stationed in states that either have a trigger law or are poised to enact more stringent abortion bans will be faced with sharp reductions in the...
By Dr. Kyleanne Hunter
CommentarySharper: Pride in National Security
In order for the United States to maintain its strategic advantage, the national security community must be able to access the nation's top talent and draw from their strength...
By Anna Pederson, Nathalie Grogan & Katherine L. Kuzminski