The Trump administration has entered the war against Iran with what one prominent analyst has called "a rare degree of thoroughness" in botching the political foundations every wartime leader needs, "Hvylya" reports, citing The Atlantic.
Eliot A. Cohen, a contributing writer at The Atlantic and professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University, has argued that the administration's advocates may admire "the ferocity of the onslaught" against Iran and Trump's apparent willingness to press on despite rising oil prices and discontent among his base - but they are fundamentally wrong to dismiss the political failures as minor.
In any war, even the most just, maintaining domestic support is essential to victory because the outcome is inherently uncertain, Cohen wrote. The president has yet to deliver "a substantial and coherent speech from the White House" about how and why he chose to wage this war. The secretary of defense "can brag or belittle but not explain," the vice president appears to be in hiding, and the secretary of state is focused on Cuba.
The administration has not secured congressional authorization for the use of military force - something the George W. Bush administration did twice. Lacking any kind of disciplined National Security Council process, officials have no common set of talking points. And when the need for allies to clear the Strait of Hormuz arose, the administration's "bullying and contempt excited an understandable aversion among other governments to doing its will with a smile."
Cohen drew a sharp contrast with past wartime leaders. Winston Churchill repeatedly gave speeches justifying the war to the British people. Abraham Lincoln micromanaged political appointments to maintain support. Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited Republicans to serve as secretaries of war and of the Navy. All understood that domestic popular and legislative support, and competent alliance management, are "the necessary reserves" to meet the emergencies that inevitably arise in any conflict.
The complaint that the administration has not specified exactly how the war will end is "captious," Cohen acknowledged - Lincoln did not know how the Civil War would end, and Roosevelt did not know how World War II would end. But the absence of a clear endgame does not excuse the absence of political groundwork.
Also read: Friedman Explains Why Air Power Alone Will Never Force a Government to Capitulate.