Хегсет будет реализовывать доктрину Трампа

Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClearDefense,

The following bullet points should be nailed to the front door of the Pentagon:

• The Korean War saved South Korea from communism but was not a military victory.
• The Vietnam War was a lengthy, humiliating, and costly defeat.
• We intervened in Somalia and the Balkans for humanitarian reasons with little real success.
• We fought an “endless” and indecisive war in Iraq.
• We fought and lost a 20-year war in Afghanistan.
• We fought an ill-fated Global War on Terror which reduced our influence in the Middle East.

After more than 30 years of interventionism abroad coupled with more than a decade of emphasizing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies within the armed services, the United States is less secure than Ronald Reagan left us in 1989.

The leaders running the Pentagon for the past 30 years have demonstrably failed.

We need a fresh start in that massive building in Arlington County just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

Pete Hegseth, who President-elect Trump plans to nominate as Secretary of Defense, is just the person to implement that fresh start.

During that 30-year time period since the end of the Cold War, there were two major exceptions to this record of failure: the first Gulf War in 1991, which was fought for the limited purpose of reversing Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait and possible aggression toward Saudi Arabia; and the mostly anti-interventionist policies of the first Trump administration. The first Trump administration came the closest of any post-Cold War administration to replicate the “peace through strength” approach of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by restoring pride in our armed services after the debacle of Vietnam and the disastrous Carter administration. He implemented a needed conventional and nuclear weapons build-up to offset a decade and a half of a Soviet military build-up. He jump-started our economy to support crucial defense increases. He waged successful political/economic/subversive warfare against the Soviet empire to exploit Soviet economic and political vulnerabilities, which caused the “evil empire” to collapse.

The Reagan administration did not engage in endless wars and did not expend U.S. lives and resources in waging war for humanitarian purposes. Reagan used “human rights” as a cudgel to injure the Soviet empire. Unlike Carter, Reagan did not make human rights the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Reagan and his national security team—Casper Weinberger, George Shultz, Richard Allen, William Clarke, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Colin Powell, George H.W. Bush—won the Cold War without firing a shot (except for a brief and successful skirmish on the island of Grenada).

Pete Hegseth will bring to the position of Secretary of Defense an infantryman’s experience in the endless and futile wars of the first two decades of the 21st century.

After graduating from Princeton University in 2003, Hegseth served as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard. He deployed overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He earned two Bronze Stars and the highly coveted Combat Infantryman’s Badge.

One sergeant major who served with Hegseth in Iraq described him as a leader who was “very good,” “very smart,” “very articulate,” “open-minded and a very critical thinker,” and who “took everybody’s input,” and was “very eager to learn [and] listen.” “He put the troops first” and was “the first one through the door” during important missions.

An Army colonel who served with Hegseth in Afghanistan noted that Hegseth was “well-educated . . . a lifelong learner . . . who performed admirably” in challenging situations. That experience will be invaluable in ensuring that we avoid such policy debacles in the next four years. And what better way to reinvigorate the troops in every service than having one of their own running the Pentagon and serving in the president’s Cabinet?

What we know of Hegseth’s public views on major international and defense issues indicates that he will be a good fit for President Trump’s “America First” agenda. His experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has made him skeptical of neoconservative/neoliberal plans to spread democracy throughout the world. Seeing fellow soldiers die in endless wars focuses the mind and raises questions about the wisdom of the leaders and policymakers who either launched or perpetuated bad wars. It has also made him question the wisdom of interventionist policies in places like Ukraine, where the momentum of war and inertia of policy can lead to greater involvement by the United States and a possible war between nuclear-armed great powers.

Like Trump, Hegseth is a China hawk. He has been quoted as saying that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is “building an army specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America.” China, he said, has “a full spectrum, long-term view of not just regional, but global domination,” and it wants to “corner the market completely on the technological future.”

Hegseth’s views appear to coincide with those of Elbridge Colby, a defense expert who Trump announced will be nominated for Under Secretary Defense for Policy. Colby, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development in the first Trump administration, is one of the nation’s most influential realist thinkers. Colby was the chief author of the Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which shifted the nation’s national security focus from peripheral wars to great power competition, especially with regard to China’s global challenge.

Hegseth’s views also appear to coincide with the Weinberger Doctrine that helped shape Reagan’s and Bush 41’s approaches to national defense and waging war.

Reagan’s first Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, announced the doctrine at the National Press Club on November 28, 1984. Weinberger made several assertions that should also be nailed to the front door of the Pentagon:

• Our military should only be used if our own vital interests are at stake.
• If our armed forces are committed to battle, our sole objective must be victory, and the size and composition of the force must be sufficient to achieve victory over the enemy.
• We should not commit our armed forces unless we have “clearly defined political and military objectives,” as Clausewitz advised.
• We should continuously reassess the relationship between our objectives and power and make whatever adjustments are necessary to win.
• We should not commit the armed forces to combat unless the war has the support of Congress and the American people.
• We should only commit our armed forces to combat as a last resort.

Reagan adhered to the Weinberger Doctrine, building up our military strength while using it very sparingly—peace through strength—and won the Cold War. His successor, George H.W. Bush, essentially adhered to the Weinberger Doctrine in successfully waging a brief war against Iraq in 1991. Bush’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell invoked the principles of the Weinberger Doctrine in explaining how we waged war in the First Gulf War.

Hegseth and top deputies like Elbridge Colby must formulate and implement what should be called the Trump Doctrine. Its essence will be “America First” and “peace through strength.” Its focus will be the global challenge of China. It will likely include a Lippmann-esque assessment and adjustment of commitments and resources. Internally, it will mean ending the woke fixation on diversity, equity, and inclusion (which Hegseth has publicly criticized) in favor of reinvigorating the warrior culture. The failed military and defense leadership of most of the past 30 years must be abandoned. And perhaps Hegseth will suggest that we bring back the proper name of the department he will lead—the War Department.

Francis P. Sempa writes on foreign policy and geopolitics. His Best Defense columns appear at the beginning of each month.