Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-04-14-at-8.30.06-pm

Politico relays outrage that the president ‘overrode’ his generals on Afghanistan

The military doesn’t make US foreign policy decisions and there’s a reason for that.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific

If any one instance can illustrate Washington’s deference to the military on U.S. foreign policy decision making, it’s an article from Politico reporting on reaction from the Pentagon to President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. 

In fact, these assumptions are neatly packaged in the article’s title — “‘The Pentagon is not making these decisions’: How Biden’s team overrode the brass on Afghanistan.”

Yes, of course the Pentagon isn’t making these decisions. That’s because in our country we have this thing called civilian control of the military, and it’s the president — not the defense secretary, the joint chiefs of staff, or any other top military officer — setting the course of U.S. foreign policy. 

So yes, Biden “overrode the brass” because he’s the commander-in-chief and that’s what he’s allowed to do if he so chooses. In fact, if one of the previous three presidents had overridden the military brass, we probably wouldn’t have been mired in an endless and extremely costly conflict in Afghanistan that those same military higher-ups often admitted behind closed doors could not be won.

That tone — incredulity that President Biden had the gall to overrule the generals — is distributed equally throughout the piece, as it relays anonymous concerns that “Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan who are truly ‘running the Pentagon,’” and quotes current and former military officials — for example, Jack Keane and David Petraeus — “have lingering concerns about the withdrawal.”

The reality is that we don’t really know how the Pentagon and the entire U.S. military feel about withdrawing from Afghanistan. But available evidence shows that at least a majority support it. 

How Washington reporters cover U.S. foreign policy issues contributes significantly to American militarism; look no further than the run-up to the Iraq war for direct evidence. But most often their coverage — as in this case mentioned above — is more subtle in advancing hawkish viewpoints. That, in turn, buttresses a mindset that defaults to the Pentagon in search of answers to complex challenges abroad that most often require painstaking diplomacy and other non-military means.


Reporting | Asia-Pacific
US army
Top photo credit: US Army/US Department of Defense

The US Army is about to get smaller, especially in Europe

Military Industrial Complex

What are the Trump administration’s plans for the U.S. Army at home and abroad?

The question hung over recent House and Senate hearings with Pentagon officials about security challenges facing the United States. “The Department [of Defense (DoD)] is undergoing a global force posture review…No decisions have been made at this time,” the acting assistant secretary for international security affairs, Katherine Thompson, responded at one session when asked about the possibility of changes to the U.S. military footprint in Europe.

keep readingShow less
Ben Gvir Kristi Noem
Top photo credit: Ben Gvir (Shutterstock/Barak Shacked) and Kristi Noem (Shutterstock/Maxim Elramsisy)

Is Trump orbit rolling out red carpet for Israeli extremist Ben Gvir?

Middle East

Few American politicians can claim to back Israel more emphatically than Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).

Since the Oct. 7 attacks, Torres has dedicated himself to defending Israel and striking out against those who criticize its war in Gaza, earning him the moniker of “Israel’s loudest House supporter.” These efforts have garnered high praise from Israeli leadership. “Congressman Torres reflects our extraordinary ties and true friendship,” Israel’s defense minister said last year after meeting with the lawmaker.

keep readingShow less
Trump team opts to keep US shell companies in the shadows
Top image credit: Zenza Flarini

Trump team opts to keep US shell companies in the shadows

Military Industrial Complex

On March 21, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that U.S. shell companies and their owners can once again conceal their identities — a move critics warn could weaken national security and spur illicit financial activity that puts the American public at risk.

Treasury’s initial beneficial ownership information (BOI) disclosure requirement for all companies with less than 20 employees garnered bipartisan support and Trump’s approval during his first administration, but it was short-lived. Officially brought into force last January 2024, and then stymied by lawsuits, the requirement passed its final legal roadblock in February 2025 — only to be shelved a month later by the administration.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.