that old credibility question

it can be a slippery slop

The deterioration of conditions in the greater Middle East ought surprise no one following just short of four months’ of various operations following the 7 October Hamas invasion of Israel. Efforts to facilitate another prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel strain to accomplish anything satisfactory for either side while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hangs on by a thin line of support in his own country as he defiantly avows staying the course; Hamas leadership scatters and moves to survive. Civilians in Palestine have already paid a hideous price which will only get more expensive. Houthi attacks on U.S. forces spread in various missions ranging from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Iraq and Syria led to the murder of three service personnel yesterday; the Biden administration will likely respond in yet another step ratcheting up the stakes for Iran (the Houthis’ primary supporters), the declared terrorist Houthi forces, U.S. allies in Britain, and the United States itself.

We soon could reach a point where all sides become so entrenched in ‘defending their honour’ to the point of sliding into a generalised conflict in this highly armed yet geographically condense portion of the world. This behaviour becomes synonymous with all parties involved feeling they cannot lose face because they repeatedly believe they have sunk so much already in the burgeoning conflict. Arguably that morphs into a point of ‘no return’ because regimes believe sunk costs are too high to pull back so a spiral of greater investment, greater response, and greater conflict ensues.

Afghanistan and Iraq, for the United States, Britain, and NATO, were precisely those kind of investments by 2006 or 2007, leading to longer term massive commitments which took another full decade to unravel. Many who sacrificed so much in Afghanistan, in particular, remain angry that we departed without full vindication of the victory for which they and their peers gave. Vietnam certainly became a credibility black hole for the United States under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, with the latter’s ‘peace with honour’, its own a cynical chimera to save face but one backfiring on 30 April 1975 after 57,000 Americans, millions of Vietnamese, and countless dollars were expended.

The arguments implore understandable commitments but ones from which it becomes extremely difficult to back out. More importantly, the ‘credibility trap’ leads to greater numbers of deaths and almost invariably a diffusion of reasons we must into the need to protect credibility. In fact, we simultaneously generate more unrelated reasons for the activities without clear cut, measurable objectives.

Once states go down that path, few conflicts end with decisive victories but result in long-term slogs costing many lives, resources, and ultimately public support. Credibility is a seductive but illusory goal, particularly for a state such as ours where our commitments are vast around the world. It is a paradox: everything becomes essential yet nothing really ever satisfies the sense we have done enough because we are constantly at war. It also is the road to financial ruin surer than anything else.

One may well blame the Biden administration for being too vague early after the Israeli campaign stated to eradicate Hamas. However, administration opponents, seeming on a hair trigger both to attack the White House while also showing U.S. resolve and strength everywhere, push to punish Houthis for their terrorism and deadly attacks. I don’t countenance turning the other cheek but recognise that escalation will foster further escalation without any realistic endpoint. Too many across the security community are prioritising vague ideas of ‘showing strength’ over understanding that is a means rather than an end which it too often appears as the objective to send yet another message that we won’t allow Beijing to bully us or Taiwan.

Oh, dear.

It’s not that the current conflict in the Middle East is not important but it is becoming so poorly focused for Americans. That is the antithesis of the strategic vision we claim to desire.

Actions create consequences. i don’t expect us to repeat that phrase as a mantra but it has its value as we dance around rather than enunciating ultimate objectives. If those goals include recognising a spreading war in the Middle East diverts us from our overall stated focus on the Indo-Asia Pacific as the priority, we might want to pause here to ask where the credibility piece ranks in the mix of national priorities.

Thoughts? Rebuttals? Recommendations if you were sitting in the National Security Council meetings which occurred today? Instruments we can use other than the U.S. military to achieve objectives that I would like hear repeated in detail? Who wins and who loses if this becomes a greater conflict? Put otherwise, it is in our best interests? Why or why not? What is it worth us sacrificing in this case?

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences. The sad events transpiring on the global stage are precisely those inspiring me to write daily. I appreciate your time. I especially support the wonderful paid subscribers.

It began as a cool morning but the northerly wind made it a chilly one when i came out of lecturing this morning. Brrr. But, it is pretty over the beloved Spa Creek.

Be well and be safe. FIN