Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.


google cta
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Trump, George w. Bush, Bill Clinton
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (Trump White House/public domain) ; George W Bush (National Archives/public domain); President Bill Clinton (Clinton presidential library/public domain)

All aboard America's strategic blunder train. Next stop: Iran

Washington Politics

With not just one — but two — carrier battle groups now steaming in circles somewhere off the coast of Oman out of the range of Iranian missiles, we are all left with the head-scratching question: what is it, exactly, that the United States hopes to accomplish with another round of air strikes on Iran? Trump hasn’t told us.

The latest crisis du jour with Iran illustrates the strategic swamp willingly stepped into not just by Donald Trump but his predecessors as well. The swamp is built on a singular and hopelessly misguided assumption: that the use of force either by stand-off, limited strikes from 12,000 feet or even invasions will somehow solve complex political problems on the ground below. The United States today sits shivering, gripped with this runaway swamp fever — with no relief in sight.

keep readingShow less
Tucker Carlson
Top image credit: Tucker Carlson, founder of Tucker Carlson Network, speaks during the AmericaFest 2024 conference sponsored by conservative group Turning Point in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. December 19, 2024. REUTERS/Cheney Orr
Tucker escalates war with neocons over Iran

Are MAGA restrainers pulling their punches this time on Iran?

Washington Politics

The Trump administration appears to be moving closer to a U.S. war with Iran, and there are plenty on the right, including inside MAGA, rallying against it. Unfortunately, they seem much more drowned out this time around.

Marjorie Taylor Greene certainly does her bit. “Americans do not want to go to war with Iran!!!” the former Republican congresswoman shared on X Wednesday. “And they voted for NO MORE FOREIGN WARS AND NO MORE REGIME CHANGE.”

keep readingShow less
Arab and Gulf State leaders
Top photo credit: urkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan arrived in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, at the invitation of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for a visit aimed at discussing bilateral relations and issues of common interest. February 3, 2026. (Reuters)

Why Arab states are terrified of US war with Iran

Middle East

As an American attack on Iran seems increasingly inevitable, America’s allies in the Persian Gulf — the very nations hosting U.S. bases and bracing anxiously for an Iranian blowback — are terrified of escalation and are lobbying Washington to stop it .

The scale of the U.S. mobilization is indeed staggering. As reported by the Responsible Statecraft’s Kelley Vlahos, at least 108 air tankers are in or heading to the CENTCOM theater. As military officers reckon, strikes can now happen “at any moment.” These preparations suggest not only that the operation may be imminent, but also that it could be more sustainable and long-lasting than a one-off strike in Iranian nuclear sites last June.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

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.