OPINION:
The American way of war from the Revolutionary War to World War II was straightforward. We did not fight to negotiate; we fought to win.
Americans traditionally support winners. There will be those who disagree about how to fight a war, but few can ever argue with winning. Unfortunately, today we are told negotiation is winning. It is not.
Our Founding Fathers put the awesome responsibility of commander in chief in the hands of our elected president in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. They presupposed that whoever was elected by the people had the wisdom to act in the best interests of our nation. In today’s world, for better or worse, that is extended by inference to the president’s advisers as well. So, the fundamental question of winning is more relevant than ever before.
I, like many others, am asking: Do we still have the will to prosecute a war to a successful conclusion? This can be simply defined as the ability to bend an enemy to our will while making minimal to no concessions. In short, do we still have what it takes to commit to the American way of war?
By extension, do the president’s advisers, from the vice president down, subscribe to that as well?
Based on the latest developments regarding Iran, I am increasingly concerned about the answer to that question. It seems the American people are being told that negotiations to a satisfactory outcome for both sides are a win-win. That is wrong. If you believe the purpose of war is a means to negotiate, then you have already lost. You wage war to win. Period.
If I were advising a commander in chief in the current conditions, here is what I would recommend.
Bring the American people along in the decision process. History has shown that Americans will sacrifice when they are brought to understand the gravity of the situation. When Americans understand that we are fighting for tomorrow and not for today, they will rally. Americans always believe in an end state that improves the future for our children and grandchildren, namely, a world of increased safety and prosperity. The president needs to explain why the fight in Iran is that fight.
Second, you cannot prosecute a war like a business deal. War is too difficult to leave to chair-bound critics, people who lack an understanding of the principles of conflict or those who contemplate dollar signs rather than strategy. This is especially true of proactive military action, or a war of choice. This is also why this war must be won, not managed. Wars of choice carry a higher threshold. Choosing to go is different from being forced to go or acting in self-defense; this is why winning matters even more. Losing a war of choice erodes deterrence more rapidly and diminishes a nation’s ability to project power.
Next, critics will always object to war and the process of war. They need to be made irrelevant during the decision-making process. Iterative decision-making is important, and sharing diverse perspectives during the national security decision-making process is critical. However, once the decision to go is made, everyone needs to be fully committed and rowing in the same direction. Internal dissent leaked to the press after an operation has begun is dangerous and places the entire operation at risk.
I recall a comment from Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. When asked about the military strategy against the Iraqi army, he said, “Our strategy in going after this army is very, very simple. First, we’re going to cut it off, and then we’re going to kill it.”
I was serving in the Gulf at the time, on the ground with the 82nd Airborne Division, and his comment, as the principal military adviser to the president, gave those of us deployed forward the confidence in our military and our commander in chief that we would fight this war to a successful conclusion. We would win it.
I remember that at the time, the Iraqi army was battle-hardened from its war with Iran, and we expected a difficult fight. We had a 30-day air campaign that set the conditions for our ground assault. The columns of the 82nd Airborne were sitting on the banks of the Euphrates within 48 hours of crossing the line of departure from Kuwait.
Five Republican Guard armored and mechanized divisions were facing us. Our mission, no matter what happened, was to stay and fight. I know; I led one of the columns in the 82nd Airborne. The ground phase of the war, after the air campaign, lasted 100 hours.
Later, we joked that we thought we were going to be “speed bumps,” there to slow them down and deal death, but take a lot of loss of our own. We accepted that reality and the nature of war.
It is a hard choice, but with our exceptional military and our nation’s talented commanders, we can conclude this current war with Iran successfully. It does not mean there will not be a sacrifice. There will be, but winning in Iran means securing a more peaceful and prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. Hopefully, this will reduce their burden of sacrifice. This war with Iran is not just for today; it is also for tomorrow.
It is time to stop negotiating. Finish it by winning.
• Keith Kellogg is a co-chair for American security at the America First Policy Institute and the former special presidential envoy to Ukraine. He served as assistant to the president, U.S. National Security Council chief of staff and national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence during President Trump’s first administration. He is a retired Army lieutenant general and commanded the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.