US presidents often leave the White House expressing “strategic regret” over perceived foreign policy failures.
Lyndon Johnson was troubled by the Vietnam War. Bill Clinton regretted the failure of the Somalia intervention and that the “Black Hawk Down'' incident contributed to the administration's inaction on the Rwandan genocide. President Barack Obama said intervening in Libya was the “worst mistake” of his presidency. And after the tragic 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. service members, President Ronald Reagan called the decision to send troops to Lebanon his “greatest regret and greatest sorrow.'' ” he called.
As the United States heads into a presidential election that will likely negate any future White House ambitions of one of its two most recent residents, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it is likely that one or both of the same It's natural to ask if you're going to have an experience. It's a strategic regret. ”
As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and grand strategy, I believe that if history is any guide, the answer may be found in their decisions to keep U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq.
As both countries' forces (about 900 in Syria and about 2,500 in Iraq) have recently faced missile attacks from Iranian-backed proxies, the United States has criticized the 1983 Beirut terrorist attack. The United States may be inching closer to another incident similar to the recent death of three American soldiers in Jordan along the Syrian border, a point made even clearer by the United States.
Beirut again?
The Middle East has entered a period of instability. Threats to U.S. military personnel in the region include both the Islamic State seeking to attack Western targets and the increased risk posed by a network of Iranian-linked militants seeking retaliation for what they see as U.S. complicity in the siege of Israel. appears in the form of of Gaza.
In the event of a mass casualty attack on U.S. forces, the occupant of the White House would be faced with two situations in which the outgoing president would experience strategic regret. They are the loss of American lives under their watch and the possibility of becoming drawn into an escalating war. .
AP photo
By historical standards, the Middle East may be ripe for strategic regret. The situation in Iraq and Syria today is eerily similar in many ways to the situation that Reagan faced in Beirut, but it is potentially far more dangerous.
As in Lebanon at the time, U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq and Syria for secondary rather than primary security purposes.
Lebanon's military in the early 1980s was a peacekeeping force. In Iraq and Syria, threats to U.S. national security include supporting operations against the Islamic State group that ended in the collapse of the caliphate in 2019. According to a recent Department of Defense report, the threat to the United States remains extremely weak today.
As in Lebanon, today's U.S. military is at great risk given its small numbers, hostile environment, and dependence on Iraqi, Turkish, and Kurdish forces for supply lines. This makes them easy targets for attacks.
Although President Reagan was unaware of the high levels of exposure to U.S. Marines in 1983, the dangers facing U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria today are abundantly clear. The US military has faced more than 160 missile attacks from Iranian-backed proxies since mid-October 2023.
Jordan attacks aside, U.S. military personnel have already suffered serious injuries from missiles, including dozens of traumatic brain injuries. Iran said in April that the United States “must answer” for Israel's killing of three Iranian Quds Force generals in Syria this week, and further deadly attacks against American soldiers in Iraq and Syria. seems to be becoming more likely.
encourage arrogance
Some may think this concern about “another Beirut” is overblown. After all, proxy attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria have declined since the attack on Jordan in late January, giving the impression that deterrence is working following a massive U.S. retaliatory attack in February. There is.
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images
But here, too, history conveys a warning. The 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing was preceded by a smaller but still deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. During the lull that followed the embassy attack, Reagan officials did not pursue a strategically prudent rethink of U.S. policy or consider troop reductions.
Instead, driven in part by their determination to succeed in their mission, they redoubled to take a more offensive role in the Lebanese civil war.
It was a fateful decision. So when there is a lull in violence, as in Iraq and Syria today, arrogance can be amplified, leading to a false sense of security and a dangerous sense of staying the course.
As Lebanon, as well as Somalia under the Clinton administration and Vietnam under the Johnson administration, demonstrate, this is a key condition for strategic regret.
If there is to be regret over Iraq and Syria, there is reason to believe that it may be even more profound for the current occupant of the White House than it was for President Reagan in 1983. After the bombing of Beirut, President Reagan used the distraction of invading Grenada. He would rather quietly withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon than escalate militarily and risk further bloodshed by the United States.
Even if Biden or Trump replaces the current Oval Office seat in November, they may not be able to afford a Grenada-like distraction.
Instead, intense partisan politics in Washington will become entrenched, as the president seeks to avoid being seen as weak or criticized for doing too little. Biden's critics have already made such accusations regarding the attack on Jordan, but that may just be the case. The situation will likely become even bigger if another incident results in mass casualties.
As research has shown, the phrase “See, I told you so” is a powerful rhetorical device in situations like this.
ghosts of history
In response, Biden and Trump, like their predecessors, may feel pressure to “go big” militarily. But anything too big risks the kind of reaction that can lead to permanent and devastating consequences.
For example, imagine a scenario in which the U.S. president is provoked to attack Iran following repeated attacks on U.S. forces by Iranian government proxies. In such a scenario, Iran would have little choice but to respond in kind.
The result will be an escalation of the Middle East conflict and further involvement of the United States. And that's what Americans generally don't want.
The majority of progressives, young voters, and black Americans oppose the war. So do MAGA Republicans.
Moreover, the inevitable economic pain of war is likely to evaporate support at home and undermine the United States' ability to devote resources and effort to other countries, particularly in Asia and Europe.
All of this is inevitable. A presidency need not end in strategic regret. And like his predecessor, both Biden and Trump will have options. Presidents Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all made the wrong choices and regretted them. Their experiences and the ghosts of history serve as a warning to U.S. forces currently stationed in Syria and Iraq. That way, you might have fewer regrets.
