Among the most welcome and effective disruptive reforms of the Trump presidency is a re-thinking and re-articulation of the use of military power.  Historically, military personnel served to perform a number of important, sometimes discreet, objectives, but their most important purpose was always to defeat opposing forces, and keep the peace.  

It is in this latter role that they were often most vulnerable, as prior administrations left small contingencies of American military personnel literally as hostages for peace, promising implicitly or explicitly that any attack on U.S. forces would bring response, including, but not limited to, the whole might of the U.S. military.  These sometimes shockingly vulnerable contingencies served a more symbolic than operational purpose, since it would only be by response and reinforcement that their numbers could be an effective fighting force.

The most recent example of troops being removed from Syria demonstrates well the Trump thinking on use of U.S. troops in contrast to traditional and conventional practice.  All of the Left, and many on the Right, decried Trump removing what almost everyone agreed was an operationally ineffective number of troops (at the end, less than fifty) left as a symbolic demonstration of commitment to the Turkish Kurds, and an ever-present tripwire against full invasion.  In essence, U.S. troops served as deterrent by risking military and non-military lives with complete understanding that a full assault by a Russian-backed Syria into Turkey would easily overwhelm them, but would invite massive response.  Trump repeatedly defended his removal of the troops by pointing out that the contingency was operationally incapable of performing any real objective, and that the past practice of engaging in "perpetual wars" had to end. 

Recently, in response to Trump's surgical targeting of perhaps the most dangerous and effective terrorist on the planet, Iraq threatened to expel U.S. troops from Iraq.  All of the Left and some miscreants on the Right crowed that the result demonstrated Trump's recklessness and incapability.  Trump, undeterred, responded in an interview with Laura Ingraham that he was "O.K." with removal of troops from Iraq, although he smirked that Iraq was taking a much different position privately: "They speak much differently privately than they do publicly."  

Trump seized the opportunity to recount his removal of troops from Syria, and said that although the U.S. continues to maintain troops in South Korea, South Korea commits troops and treasure, too. Trump claimed his administration had secured from South Korea $500 million in recently negotiated commitment.  Trump also stated that if the U.S. would withdraw troops from Iraq, the U.S. would expect repayment for U.S. contributions to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.  Trump stated that U.S. troops serve in Iraq only to train and support the Iraqi military. 

Trump clearly sees U.S. troops as operational tools, not symbolic representations of U.S. commitment.  Moreover, in what should be heralded as a welcome evolution in the purpose the troops serve, Trump has no taste for using troops as hostage tripwires to conflict.  For Trump, "No more Benghazis" means immediate overwhelming defense and rapid surgical retaliation. 

The Trump doctrine, that every loss of American life will be quickly avenged by disproportionate response, is simple, clear, and obviously effective.  There is perhaps no better proof than Iran's statements that it intentionally avoided the taking of American lives in its short lived response to the killing of Soleimani.  Perhaps the world will hold Iran to account for the lives of innocent Canadians, Ukrainians, Russians, and the others, improvidently killed in the heat of Iran's measured response (read: temper tantrum).  Regardless, Iran clearly understood the Trump doctrine, and measured its response accordingly. 

For those of us who regard our troops' lives as worthy of every protection, and who have watched with pain as previous administrations have irresponsibly sacrificed their lives by leaving them unsupported in dangerous parts of the world, the Trump commitment is welcome and awe-inspiring. Likewise, the immediate response to a loss of any American life, even non-service personnel (i.e. the American contractor killed by Iranian-backed terrorists) is welcome.  The commitment suggests that Trump values all life, and not only the lives of those those donning a uniform in committed service.  It means that any loss of military and security personnel are not accepted "collateral damage" to foreign misadventure. Whether civilian or not, Americans are protected by the Trump administration.     

One has to wonder why past presidents, as experienced politicians and military leaders, were unable to articulate a policy/red line so simply and effectively that even the hostile Iranians could understand and conform their behavior so as to protect American lives.  Like Trump's disruptive reform of political communication and foreign services, it is becoming obvious that only the "apolitical" can see so clearly the need and goal to effectively attain the objective.      

Image credit: U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Jason Johnston/Released./ public domain