Mission Creep: The Danger for the US in the Middle East
It’s starting, just like it started in Vietnam
The United States, in its zeal to protect its client state Israel in the wake of the October 7 massacre by Hamas forces of civilians at the Kfar Aza and Be'eri kibbutzim, appears increasingly unlikely to heed the Pottery Barn doctrine of the late General Colin Powell, who said that if you break it, you own it. US planners currently have more than 45,000 troops on the ground in 11 countries throughout the Middle East. With US forces at outposts throughout the region exposed to missile and drone attacks, the US is more and more likely to be drawn deeper into a conflict generated by almost biblical Israeli imperatives for vengeance over its 1,200 dead, some of them killed in barbaric fashion. No US soldiers have been killed, but at least 21 have suffered what the defense department describes as minor injuries.
The map below, compiled by the news portal Axios, shows where US troops are, not counting the 15,000 men and women aboard two aircraft carrier battle groups – the USS Dwight Eisenhower and the USS Gerald Ford – and their accompanying vessels, which typically include two cruisers, three destroyers or frigates and auxiliary support, a tempting target for missiles and drones.
There is a growing certainty that troop engagements with hostile forces will increase. The US is exposed both on land and sea and with little evidence that planners are considering the potential consequences. Most recently, according to the US Central Command, the US Navy shot down 21 missiles and drones launched by Houthi rebels from Yemen in one of the largest encounters to take place in the Red Sea in recent months. On January 4, according to news services, the US and its allies issued what was called a “final warning” to Houthi rebels – which has been ignored – to cease their attacks on vessels in the Red Sea or face potential targeted military action.
If that sounds like the afternoon of August 4, 1964, when the American destroyer USS Turner Joy, on patrol in the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam, reported that it had sighted torpedo wakes from small, high-speed surface craft, it should. The Turner Joy then went to flank speed, maneuvered radically to evade the alleged torpedoes, and began firing. According to official US records, over the next two and a half hours, the Turner Joy fired 220 five-inch shells at the marauding craft, while planes from the carrier USS Ticonderoga fired at them as well.
There is considerable controversy over whether that engagement took place. But it was the pretext for an expanded US presence in Vietnam. Eventually, as history and the Pentagon Papers will tell us, 2,709,918 US troops served on active duty in Vietnam starting on August 5, the day after the Turner Joy’s engagement, until March 28, 1973, when the bedraggled US military left amid reports of shattered discipline, widespread drug use, fraggings of commissioned officers by enlisted troops, up to 3 million dead Vietnamese military and civilians, 300,000-odd Cambodian and 50,000 or so Laotian dead and 58,220 US troops killed in action. According to the US Statistical Abstract, the war cost US$352 billion in 1973 dollars. Since 1970 – 54 years ago – the postwar benefits for veterans and families have cost $270 billion. It left American cities on fire and the country’s youth in rebellion.
In response, then-General Colin Powell, one of the most thoughtful of US military leaders, in the runup to the 1990–1991 Gulf War, created what became known as the Powell Doctrine, a list of eight questions that he said all must be answered before the US takes military action. Powell privately called it the Pottery Barn rule – you break it, you own it: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Is there a clear attainable objective? Have the risks been fully analyzed? Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy? Have the consequences been fully considered? Do the American people support it? Is there genuine broad international support?
The Powell doctrine has been mostly ignored by the US military ever since, except for the first Gulf War in 1991, when Powell, under President George H.W. Bush, was the driving force behind Desert Shield, which handily destroyed the Iraqi army with half a million US troops, and then stopped at the Iraq border for good reason and allowed Saddam Hussein to live another day. The Powell doctrine was ignored by Bush’s son George W. Bush with disastrous results. It was also ignored in Afghanistan, where the US fought a fruitless 20-year war that ended in July of 2021 with 176,000 Afghans dead, including 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military and police, at least 52,893 opposition fighters, and 2,402 US servicemen and women when the last US Air Force C-17 Globemaster lifted off from Kabul Airport.
US planners would do well to try to remember the last time they clearly won a war, and why they haven’t been successful, and apply those lessons to the Middle East. The Houthi rebellion has been going on in Yemen since 2004 when the San’a government attempted to arrest a Houthi religious leader. As it has grown, it has become a proxy war between the Saudis, who backed the government, and the Iranians, whose Shiite government has been challenging Sunni governments throughout the Horn of Africa and the surrounding region. The Saudis have spent tens of billions of dollars fruitlessly working to quell the Houthi rebellion and to overthrow the Syrian regime headed by Bashir Assad, with considerable US money and military expertise, hence the US special forces sprinkled all over the region, as shown by Axios’s map. Despite 20 years of effort, the Saudis and their client state Yemen have been unable to quell the Houthi rebellion. It is hubris for the US military to think they can do it.
The troops being sent to the Middle East are not expected to serve in combat roles, the White House said. That is what John F. Kennedy said in May 1961 when he authorized sending 400 Special Forces troops and military advisers to assist the government of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam. The Biden Administration, in support of an Israeli expedition that seems likely to refuse to stop until it has expelled or exterminated every last living person in the 365 sq. km of Gaza, has discussed the possibility of using military force if Lebanon-based Hezbollah opens a new front in the war, according to news reports. The White House is on record saying it would support such action.
This is a process known as mission creep, defined in Webster as “the gradual or incremental expansion of an intervention, project or mission, beyond its original scope, focus or goals, a ratchet effect spawned by initial success. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to how each success breeds more ambitious interventions until a final failure happens, stopping the intervention entirely.”
As Powell said: Is there a plausible exit strategy? Have the consequences been fully considered? Do the American people support it? Is there genuine broad international support? Those questions have to be asked.
The author was a correspondent in Vietnam at a time when US troop levels went from 115,000 to 550,000.
FM Tun Sir Gerald Templer was Chief of the General Staff at the time of Suez. In response to a question on strategy he replied "Sure, I can take Cairo. What do I do with it once I've got it?"
This is an excellent write-up. Darn good analysis, too. Thanks, Mr. Berthelsen.
Clearly, the US warships in and around the Red Sea is to protect the US economy from slinking into rounds of talk the hiking of the inflation rate and maybe a soft landing of the very buoyant US economy. The second of this is unlikely, I would argue, but the first is a real possibility if the Israel-Palestine -- no longer an Israel-Hamas war -- drags on. There is no doubt Israel's fascist prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a hopeless desperado, wants the stretch the war out for a long as possible, to keep at bay his day in court over three corruption charges hanging over his head, and a popular liberal revolt against him and his ultra-rightwing regime of Zionists. Amongst whom are those who want to continue the regime's ethno-genocide of the Palestinian people, or to drive them out of their own lands for the benefit of Zionists. That said, another reason Netanyahu want to keep the war going is to ensure the US military remains engaged throughout the region. The fact that Joe Biden refuses to condemn the Netanyahu regime for its disproportionate barbarity isn't because of any specific US-Israeli alliance but (a) because of the pull and push of the all-powerful Jewish lobby in the US and (b) how this war and the stationing of US troops abroad, helps to keep the US's huge military-industrial complex in business, with boosts in US state spending on the MIC's "business" operations.
Given the spread of what is, and remains, the US war machine, to all corners of the world -- most critically the Middle East and the South China Sea, I am reminded of the term coined by Paul Kennedy and his excellent analyses in his book, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. We know how The Soviet Union collapsed as a result of its own "imperial overstretch" but it wasn't really the pressure applied on the Soviets by the American superpower. Rather, the Soviet Union imploded under the weight of its own weighty imperial overreach that more or less killed the always-struggling, if not greatly weakened Soviet economy. Read Gorbachev's memoir. Forget Francis Fuluyama's thesis, The End of History; it turned out to be populist philosophical hogwash. But, as then, and so now, the Asians -- from Southeast to Northeast Asia -- were happy to see the American superpower "re-engaged" in their own neck of the woods. The idea that the US is "pivoting" towards East Asia is still to be seen. In my view it will but not on the scale that had happened during the Vietnam War. That war, lasting as long as it did, on the scale on which he was prosecuted, left a number of Asian economies grinning from ear-to-ear for the economic benefits it brought to their then sluggish or, in the words of Alexander Gerschenkron", "backward" economies. The rise and rise of the regional postwar order in Northeast Asia also provided countries from Thailand to Malaysia, Singapore to Indonesia and the Philippines, significant comfort for the protection accorded to their own security fears and apparatus.
This is not to suggest something similar is happening in the Middle East with those states aligned to the US security umbrella and those in the middle of "normalizing" diplomatic ties with Israel. But you can bet your bottom dollar the US is counting the pennies for the huge orders that will come from these countries for the US arsenal. And who will provide this? The US military-industrial complex, of course; although Britain will want a bit of the action too. After all, the British economy is in the dog-house, and is likely to remain there, despite Rishi Sunak's Goldman Sachs stint boasts (the poor fellow is out of his depth). But you can bet the US Treasury and Janet Yellen will be all too pleased when the weapons orders come sailing in.