Brian M Downing
Presidents inherit foreign policy burdens from their predecessors. LBJ was handed a deteriorating situation in Southeast Asia. Nixon got an unwinnable war and a public that wanted out of it. Bush the Younger bequeathed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Obama and Trump. Both managed to muddle through, avoid strategic reassessment, and leave office before the music stopped.
When Biden was sworn in, Afghanistan was near collapse. Kabul fell a few months later. He now must deal with Iraq and Syria amid a portentous geopolitical shift. China is a rising power determined to weaken the United States in as many parts of the world as possible. Russia and Iran are lesser powers but share the interest.
American globalism today
Just prior to WW2 the US had the world’s nineteenth largest military. In 1945 it had one of the biggest. Its forces had been sent around the world and as the Cold War emerged, deployment became containment. The US was a global power with military bases in some ninety countries. The Soviet Union’s demise saw force reductions but almost all overseas bases remained.
China now sees the network of military bases from East Asia to the Persian Gulf as threats to import and export routes. Russia seeks to regain power prestige and respond to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. Iran, angered by US sanctions and support for assassinations and bombings, is eager for revenge.
The three have already played roles in the American defeat in Afghanistan. They now want to weaken American positions in Iraq and Syria. Neither is large but a US withdrawal would be a welcome symbol of decline.
Changing domestic politics
Biden is seen as a less than forceful leader who like France’s Macron, was elected for who he wasn’t, not who he was. His foreign policy team, led by the unremarkable Antony Blinken, offers little compensation. The perception of weakness is overstated by domestic enemies but isn’t ignored by foreign ones.
The absence of a strong hand at the helm and the presence of a deeply polarized political system might lead China et al to think Washington is incapable of firm action in the world. This would be a miscalculation as presidents have extraordinary latitude in military matters and a weak president may be all the more likely to respond firmly.
Time is on the rivals’ side. A generation of progressives is on the rise. They are unburdened by knowledge of military matters, attuned to domestic spending rather than global power, and appalled by human rights abuses by Gulf potentates and their complicity in climate change. Better to spend money on problems at home than on troops abroad.
The trio’s approach
China, Russia, and Iran are determined to embarrass the US in Iraq and Syria. Iran will be in the van.
Iranian-backed militias in Iraq will continue to hit US positions: civilian ones such as the expansive embassy compound in Baghdad, military ones mainly in western districts. US retaliation will be firm but unlikely to deter further attacks.
Iran also has considerable influence with Shia parties and will encourage them to press for a US ouster, as they did in 2008. Though Iranian-backed parties didn’t fare well in recent elections, anti-American sentiment is widespread and consensus may come again.
The US position in eastern Syria is vulnerable to attacks from Syrian forces, IRGC troops, Iranian-backed militias, and Russian forces. If the US were ordered out of Iraq, positions in eastern Syria would be difficult to maintain. Withdrawal may be necessary.
Washington’s quandary
Iran and Russia can persist in small-scale attacks with little cost and few risks. If Baghdad were to order the US out, it should be welcomed in Washington, if only in private. Otherwise, Biden’s options are few and problematic.
– Keep forces in Iraq and Syria and endure light casualties for the foreseeable future.
– Reinforce positions and increase retaliation. However, the other side can escalate too, and undoubtedly will.
– Recognize that the positions no longer serve security interests and withdraw. This would lead to a harsh backlash – highly partisan of course, but globalism is deeply ingrained in the American mind. Both sides of the aisle are beholden to Middle Eastern allies who will demand continued presence.
– Withdrawal would be a boon for Iran. Its influence in Syria and Iraq would consolidate. The perception that America is in decline and doesn’t see things through will be underscored by allies and enemies alike.
The Biden administration’s plight is the result of his predecessors’ lack of strategic vision, naive sense of limitlessness, and failure to reassess. Elections in 2022 and 2024 already look unpromising for Biden’s party. Staying the proverbial course will be less risky than strategic reassessment. Biden’s successor may have a burdensome inheritance. That’s why Afghanistan lasted twenty years and ended dismally.
©2021 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.