Read on Twitter
The U.S. is reducing its presence in Iraq to 3,000 troops, a level not seen since 2015. As @Andy_J_Payne notes, this shouldn't be that surprising in the run-up to an election, though 2 months is cutting it close. But why not withdraw entirely? (1/9) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/politics/iraq-troops-trump.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
It’s clear that President Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on “ending endless wars” & has shown increasingly less patience with those he once referred to as "my generals,” feels the need to appear he’s delivering on his “promises made, promises kept” (2/9) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263395720937205
It is a bit surprising this move comes so close to the election, but as @Andy_J_Payne notes in @Journal_IS, perhaps less so given Trump needs to shake up the race & real effects of earlier decisions that have left U.S. forces in Iraq more vulnerable (3/9) https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec_a_00371
If the goal is to rally his base, why wouldn’t Trump, for whom showmanship is his preferred leadership style, opt for a more dramatic move and withdraw all U.S. troops entirely? An answer can be traced to what @ProfSaunders calls "the insiders' game” (4/9) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2015.1070618?journalCode=fsst20
Building on these insights, my research focus on the influence of military advisors relative to civilian counterparts in shaping decision-making during wartime. I argue that presidents are differentially vulnerable to dissent from advisors who cover certain political flanks (5/9)
In foreign policy matters, Trump is unusually vulnerable to criticism from his right flank, which generally prefers more assertive strategies to meet threats on the global stage. Dissent from within the Pentagon would therefore be especially damaging politically for Trump...(6/9)
Particularly after a summer that saw his former defense secretary & even current officials criticize Trump's use of military assets to facilitate a photo op in Lafayette Square & news reports suggesting Trump described troops “losers” and “suckers” (7/9) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/
Even as he maligns his generals, Trump knows he can ill-afford yet another round of criticism from retired officers, particularly those who served in civilian roles in his administration, who would likely dissent from a decision for a full withdrawal (8/9) https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/07/politics/trump-attack-military-leadership/index.html
Like Goldilocks, Trump has settled for the bureaucratic option that is “just right”: rally his base with a campaign promise to reduce U.S. troop presence overseas, but avoid criticism that would come from a full withdrawal among elites whose dissent he cannot to stoke (9/9)
If you want to hear more about this argument and how it relates to LBJ’s decisions in Vietnam after the 1968 Tet Offensive, please join me & my colleagues at our #APSA2020 panel on Militaries & Democratic Processes,” live on your screen on Sunday, 9/13, at 12pm ET/9am PT! (10/9)
