A Lack of Deterrence Leads to More American Deaths

Will the administration finally engage in real deterrence?

Sgt. William Rivers, Specialist Kennedy Sanders, and Specialist Breonna Moffett

President Biden, and his Secretary of Defense have announced a major change in US policy: As a result of the Iranian attack on Tower 22 that killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded scores more, they are going to begin protecting US troops! Don’t believe me? Here it is from the horse’s mouth at Secretary Austin’s February 1 press conference: “The President will not tolerate attacks on American troops, and neither will I.”

Well, that’s a relief, isn’t it? After tolerating attacks on American troops since . . . oh, about January 20, 2021, we now have a dramatic change in policy. We have gone from “Don’t, don’t, don’t!” to “We are not going to tolerate this anymore, but we don’t want a wider war.”        

But, do they mean it, or is it more pablum to placate the masses? Read on and judge for yourself.

BIDEN’S PRIOR POLICY OF TOLERATION, WEAKNESS AND APPEASEMENT

Biden true believers may claim that this is not a change in policy, that his administration really has not been tolerating attacks on our troops. To test that, we should do as Richard Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, advised: Look at what they have done, not what they say. What they have done is tolerate the more than 200 attacks on our troops that have occurred on Biden watch without any kind of meaningful response. And don’t fall into the trap of accepting just the lowball statistics by counting only the 160+ attacks since October 7, 2023, as the press has been doing. 

In fact, there have been far more attacks on our troops than the press is now reporting. Between the time of Biden’s inauguration and up to October 7, attacks on our troops in Iraq and Syria were commonplace. General Jack Keane pegs it at 80 from published reports.  But that figure is low because during this administration, attacks on our forces became so commonplace that all of them were not reported in the press. They have included attacks by fire using 107 mm and 122 mm rockets, as well as UAV (drone)-delivered munitions. And although it is not widely known or reported, our forces also have been targeted with cluster munitions. Disgracefully, our troops on the ground enduring these attacks have not been allowed to engage in any meaningful response.

Moreover, the January 28 casualties were not the first Americans killed in these attacks. A military contractor was killed, and another was wounded, along with five service members in a March 2023 attack on a US base in Syria. Many of the wounded have suffered traumatic brain injuries, which can leave them totally debilitated.

So, is it fair to say that Biden tolerated these attacks? The best evidence that they have been tolerated is that, in the absence of a strong response by the U.S., they have continued. Further, judge for yourself from Biden’s actions, not his words: Billions of dollars to Iran; loosened and unenforced economic sanctions, a series of sporadic, periodic pinprick attacks on warehouses, storage depots, and the like; and more talk, talk, talk.

However the administration might attempt to characterize its retaliatory strikes, no sane or knowledgeable person would describe them as “overwhelming force.” That is, in itself, a demonstration of tolerance for the attacks. That is because it is a military axiom that if you have the capability to respond to an attack – and we do – you do so with overwhelming force. This administration is afraid to do so.

The Biden administration actually bragged about its refusal to use overwhelming force in response to attacks on our troops. They repeatedly emphasized that the counterstrikes were “focused” and “proportional.” They did not and cannot point to the use of any decisive or overwhelming force sufficient to deter further attacks.

THE RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS AFTER OCTOBER 7 – MORE TOLERATION

Even after our three soldiers’ lives were abruptly taken while they were sleeping on January 28, Biden’s and his entire administration’s initial response reinforced their prior signals of weakness.  Reuters reported, “But officials across the Biden administration said they did not want the situation to escalate.” It quoted Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh as saying, “We certainly don't seek a war and frankly we don't see Iran wanting to seek a war with the United States.”

According to CNN, “Striking Iran is one of the least likely options at this point, officials said. Biden officials said repeatedly on Monday that the US does not want to go to war with Iran, which would be the likely outcome of a US strike within Iran’s borders.”

NSC Communications Coordinator John Kirby’s first reaction was to fly the weakness flag. He parroted the Biden theme when he said, “We do not seek another war. We do not seek to escalate.” "We are not seeking a conflict with the regime in a military way." 

The President and his most senior advisors’ projection of weakness tells our enemies that they can press on.  No one wants a wider war. No one wants a war with Iran (or anyone else). But when Biden repeatedly puts his emphasis on avoiding any possibility of escalation or a war with Iran, what the Mullahs hear is: ‘This man is weak and lacks the will to fight.’ It is a prescription for more attacks and more U.S. deaths.

In short, Biden’s and his handlers’ constant refrain that, “We don’t want a wider war” and “We are not looking for conflict with Iran,” is a clear projection of weakness, not power. Contrast, if you will, their displays of fear with the warning that Marine General Jim Mattis famously gave a gathering of sheikhs when he first arrived in Al-Anbar province: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I will kill you all.”

A reminder of President Trump’s 2018 warning to Iran in the wake of Iran’s threat that a war with it would be the “mother of all wars” is also useful:

“NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

These were not the words of a weak man who was afraid of Iran.

THE WIDER WAR IS HERE AND IT IS WITH IRAN.

No one wants a wider war. But guess what – The enemy gets a vote, and we already are in a wider war.  It currently is blazing from southern Lebanon, down throughout Israel, into Gaza, to the Gulf of Aden, and now to Jordan.

And we don’t want a war with Iran? News flash, Joe.  We have been in an on-and-off low grade war with Iran since 1979 when it seized our embassy diplomats and staff and held them prisoner for 444 days. Iran then swiftly became a terrorist state. The war heated up in 2004, when our troops in Iraq were getting killed daily by sophisticated shaped-charge explosive devices manufactured by Iran and supplied to their allies who were attacking us. And it has been going on continuously while Obama and now Biden have tried to cozy up to the Mullahs and Ayatollah Ali Komeini, whom they dutifully call the “Supreme Leader.”

This latest attack and these deaths were entirely foreseeable. Given the administration’s policy, Biden, Blinken, Austin, and every other person with two brain cells in the administration knew that American service members were going to die. It was only a question of who, when and how many. These deaths are not a surprise to anyone. They are the 100% foreseeable result of a policy of abject appeasement and weakness. 

WHAT DOES DETERRENCE LOOK LIKE?

It is beyond the scope of this short article to analyze the best options if the President is serious about deterring future attacks.  In the opinion of this author, only regime change will effectively accomplish that. But Obama squandered the best opening to support the internal Iranian desire for regime change in 2009, when he refused to support the popular uprisings and demonstrations against the regime in what was termed the “Green Movement.  

Two examples of prior U.S. responses that acted as effective deterrents are particularly germane today to illustrate the kind of action that is necessary:

• In 1988, a U.S. warship, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, hit a mine while protecting oil tankers from Iranian attacks. Sound familiar? After the U.S. identified the mine as Iranian, President Bush launched Operation Praying Mantis. It was the U.S. Navy’s largest surface engagement since World War II. The result? The Iranians attempted to fight back, but our Navy sunk five Iranian ships, including a frigate and other attack vessels. The U.S. also made clear that it would go after Iranian commercial interests by destroying two oil platforms, which also housed Iranian intelligence assets. Not a pinprick. And that was in response to our ship hitting a mine in international waters, not a direct attack like the recent ones.     

• In January 2020, the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani the commander of Iran’s Quds force. President Trump authorized the strike targeting Soleimani personally after Iran killed a U.S. contractor and attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Often described as the most powerful man in Iran after “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Komeini, Soleimani headed up all of Iran’s terrorist organizations and military operations in the Middle East. According to a Pentagon statement, when he was struck, Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.” After a face-saving response (that Iran told us it would make), reports from the region show that things got very quiet after that.

WHAT NOW?  HAVE BIDEN AND AUSTIN REALLY ABANDONED THEIR TOLERATION OF IRAN’S ATTACKS?

The short answer is, we will see. But the signs are not encouraging. Nothing in their history gives any comfort that Biden, his National Security Advisor, or his Secretaries of State and Defense, understand either what we are facing or what is necessary. Because of the failures by these key players (Remember how National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan pronounced that all was quiet on the Mideast Front just a week before the October 7 savagery?), the President needs to channel General George Marshall and sack the non-performers.

Iran has killed or is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. If we want to avoid a wider war, then like dealing with any schoolyard bully, we must deter them.

To that end, instead of acquiescing in their prior strategy of weakness, Biden may want to take Toby Keith’s advice in Beer for My Horses, for what must be done when faced with evil: “You got to saddle up your boys, you got to draw a hard line.”

So, saddle up, Mr. President and draw a hard line.