The Bulwark
Trump Needs Approval for This War (W/ Michael O’Hanlon)
Why It Matters
Understanding the historical patterns of U.S. strategic assertiveness helps policymakers and the public evaluate the risks and benefits of entering new wars, especially as the Trump administration considers fresh military actions. The episode offers a timely lens on how past decisions—both limited and massive—inform current debates about American security, congressional oversight, and the nation’s role on the global stage.
Key Takeaways
- •American grand strategy remains assertive, rarely truly isolationist
- •Limited force successes include Mexico, Spanish‑American, Bosnia, Kosovo
- •Overwhelming force often yields better outcomes than restrained engagements
- •Trump’s rhetoric echoes Monroe Doctrine, challenging post‑WWII order
- •1880s‑1930s reforms built modern navy, army, and doctrine
Pulse Analysis
In Michael O’Hanlon’s new book, he argues that the United States has long pursued an "American way of strategy"—an assertive, expansion‑driven grand strategy—while rejecting the notion of a single "American way of war." By tracing conflicts from the Revolutionary War through the Mexican‑American War and the battles against Native peoples, O’Hanlon shows that U.S. leaders have repeatedly chosen proactive, often aggressive policies, only briefly retreating during the interwar 1920s‑30s. This historical lens reframes contemporary debates about isolationism, highlighting how strategic ambition has shaped America’s rise to global power.
The conversation then shifts to how limited uses of force have produced decisive victories. O’Hanlon cites the Mexican‑American War, Spanish‑American War, and 19th‑century frontier campaigns as early examples of focused, successful interventions. In the modern era, operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, and the 2007‑08 Iraq surge illustrate that well‑designed, modest troop deployments—combined with clear political objectives and integrated diplomatic tools—can achieve strategic goals without the costs of full‑scale wars. By contrast, protracted, under‑resourced engagements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and parts of Iraq underscore the pitfalls of restrained force when objectives are vague.
Finally, O’Hanlon reflects on the post‑World II order forged by Cold‑War architects like George Kennan, whose containment doctrine eventually led to NATO, permanent overseas bases, and a durable liberal‑democratic network. While this framework has sustained unprecedented global stability, the episode notes that President Trump’s rhetoric—invoking the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt’s corollary—poses a potential challenge to the established rules‑based system. As the United States navigates new geopolitical pressures, understanding the historical balance between assertive grand strategy and calibrated force remains essential for policymakers seeking to preserve America’s strategic advantage.
Episode Description
Eric welcomes Michael O’Hanlon, the Philip Knight chair in defense and strategy at the Brookings Institution, and author of To Dare Mighty Things, and a recent op-ed in the Financial Times on the Trump administration’s $200 billion supplemental budget request to fund the Iran War.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...