Bridge to Nowhere

Andrew Bacevich argues that we are building a “multi-trillion dollar bridge to nowhere” in the Middle East. Coming to the Presidency as the anti-Bush, Obama will end his Presidency with America in Bushian shape throughout the world: “Like Bush, Obama will bequeath to his successor wars he failed to finish. Less remarked upon, he will also pass along to President Clinton or President Trump new wars that are his own handiwork. In Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and several other violence-wracked African nations, the Obama legacy is one of ever-deepening U.S. military involvement. The almost certain prospect of a further accumulation of briefly celebrated and quickly forgotten ‘milestones’ beckons. During the Obama era, the tide of war has not receded. Instead, Washington finds itself drawn ever deeper into conflicts that, once begun, become interminable—wars for which the vaunted U.S. military has yet to devise a plausible solution.”

The US military has tried a variety of ingenious strategies, but “as measured by outcomes . . . they fall well short of a passing grade.” Now, “they have ended up waging a war of attrition. Strip away the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel reassurances regularly heard at Pentagon press briefings or in testimony presented on Capitol Hill and America’s War for the Greater Middle East proceeds on this unspoken assumption: if we kill enough people for a long enough period of time, the other side will eventually give in.”

Bacevich argues that the problem lies not with the military so much as with the politicians who form policy. He wants to press back to basic question: “the question of how to take out organization X or put country Y back together pales in comparison with the other questions that should by now have come to the fore but haven’t. Among the most salient are these: Does waging war across a large swath of the Islamic world make sense? When will this broader fight end? What will it cost? Short of reducing large parts of the Middle East to rubble, is that fight winnable in any meaningful sense? Above all, does the world’s most powerful nation have no other choice but to persist in pursuing a manifestly futile endeavor?”

Bacevich is an unlikely candidate to channel John Lennon, but he asks us to imagine: “Imagine the opposing candidates in a presidential campaign each refusing to accept war as the new normal. Imagine them actually taking stock of the broader fight that’s been ongoing for decades now. Imagine them offering alternatives to armed conflicts that just drag on and on. Now that would be a milestone.”