The first two months of the Trump administration have felt like a year. Whether it’s the on-again, off-again tariffs, the head-dizzying threats to annex Greenland and force Canada to become America’s 51st state, or the so-called Signalgate scandal, we’re clearly living in frenetic times.
And yet, despite everything that has gone on in the administration’s early days, Trump’s national security team remains noticeably quiet on foreign policy. We aren’t hearing much about doctrine. Perhaps that’s because Trump is impervious to staying in a single lane for more than a few days? All we’ve had is the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance, signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Unfortunately for us laymen, this document is still hidden in a government vault somewhere. The Washington Post, though, shared a few excerpts last week. The theme is pretty consistent throughout: The Pentagon will deprioritize Europe and the Middle East to free up more energy and resources on the Western Hemisphere and China. “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario,” Hegseth wrote. Counterterrorism will be downgraded as a priority as well. Per Hegseth’s orders, the United States will now concentrate predominately on terrorist groups who have both the intent and capacity to attack America.
Nothing mentioned here so far is particularly controversial.
There is a good argument that this shift in priorities is not only sound but actually long overdue. The age-old U.S. approach is stale and needlessly taxing financially and strategically. The U.S., after all, has been bottled up in the Middle East ever since the 1991 Gulf War. The multidecade war on terrorism, which started out after 9/11 as a reasonably focused attempt to degrade al Qaeda, mushroomed into one long game of whack-a-mole against al Qaeda affiliates that generally have local, not transnational, ambitions. And while Russia’s war in Ukraine brought an extra 20,000 U.S. troops into the European theater during the Biden administration, that deployment was more about reassuring European allies than it was about deterring Russia.
Yet if some of Hegseth’s points are on the mark, the organization he leads apparently hasn’t gotten the memo. The Pentagon’s actions thus far don’t square with the guidance given.
One can see this most clearly in the Middle East. Far from deprioritizing the region, the Trump administration has sent additional military platforms there, threatened a war with Iran, and engaged in dramatically escalated bombing of the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis, it should be said, don’t have the capacity to attack the United States homeland — the only reason the group is taking generally ineffective pot-shots at U.S. warships in the Red Sea today is because the U.S. Navy is in the area and represents a target of opportunity whenever an American bomb drops on a Houthi military installation.
The U.S. military is also making more naval and air assets available in the Middle East. This is designed both to send a message to the Iranians and to sustain the air campaign against the Houthis. Hegseth, the same man who supposedly wants to get out of the Middle East, has ordered the Carl Vinson carrier strike group, which was operating in the East China Sea, to the Middle East. The Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, currently in the Gulf of Aden, will remain in the area for at least another month past its scheduled redeployment.
That’s just the start.
Five B-2 stealth bombers, the most sophisticated in the U.S. bomber fleet, have landed at the Diego Garcia air base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. They’re joined by seven C-17 transport aircraft and refueling planes. Most experts believe these B-2s will provide Washington with another option to launch air attacks against Iran and the Houthis.
LAWFARE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, MARINE LE PEN, AND OTHER POPULIST POLS
Still, the obvious question arises: Is the Pentagon serious about the strategy it has laid out?
Judging by its recent moves, the answer is no. A strategy without implementation translates into a meaningless bureaucratic exercise. This is precisely what the Pentagon’s interim policy guidance is at risk of becoming.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner. His opinions are his own.
