Words matter, President Trump

Words are important, and they have clear meaning, especially as President Donald Trump begins to craft his strategic vision and direction for the national security of America.

There are two vital objectives for the Trump administration and its success, economic restoration and growth combined with a commitment to our national security and rebuilding a capable military deterrent capacity. But no matter how much our GDP grows, if there is not a sense of security it will matter less.

President Trump has used words such as “eradicate” or “eliminate” ISIS, the Islamic State. Those words sound very strong in the public sphere, however for a military strategist they mean little. This is not to discredit President Trump for lacking a military background. It is about a concise exegesis on what “effects based” operations means.

{mosads}There have been some concerns about having too many Generals involved in our national security agencies. Who better? It is as if there are those who do not comprehend the level of professional, strategic level, education career military officers receive.

Students at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officers College learn about the four elements of national power fondly referred to as the “D-I-M-E theory,” meaning Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic. When one understands these four elements, tools, of national power it is imperative to ascertain the critical “centers of gravity” of your adversary and develop your desired “effects” you wish to achieve.

Use of our military should always be the last resort as we seek to utilize the other three elements. As Carl von Clausewitz said, “war is a continuation of policy by another means.” History teaches the professional military strategist that wars are fought for three purposes, assimilation, attrition, or annihilation. Wars fought with half-measures, unclear policies, and nebulous goals seem unending and the residual consequences are lasting.

If we are to be successful, we must use precise language.

First, no more nation-building. Our focus needs to be on enemy-oriented operations and we must not be narrow in defining the enemy. We have made the previous mistakes of relegating the enemy to a singular entity, i.e. al-Qaeda, Taliban, or ISIS. Therefore we have lost the strategic vision in recognizing a growing global Islamic jihadist movement of non-state, non-uniform unlawful enemy combatants.

It is not a plausible objective to strategically “eliminate” jihadism. However, it is strategically plausible to defeat this movement by denying them sanctuaries, interdicting their flow of men, materiel and financial resource support, undermine the jihadist ideology with a focused information operation campaign, and cordon off this movement in order to reduce its spread and influence.

We must come to understand the three levels of operations: strategic, operational (respective geographic theaters of operations), and tactical. Everything starts with a well understood and articulated strategic vision (called the National Security Strategy), enabling the subsequent levels to nest their objectives in order to achieve victory. It is not a bad thing to win.

The great thing about having leaders in the Trump administration with extensive military experience is that they understand the three levels of operations. Also, these former military leaders have read Army Field Manual 3-90, Appendix B, Tactical Mission Tasks and firmly grasp the concept of effects based operations. This is quite contrary to the former Obama administration Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, who holds a degree in creative writing.

We need not creative writers, but strategic vision that recognizes the value of words. And if the actions that follow those words are decisive, our enemies will understand that.

Allen West, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and former Member of the 112th U.S. Congress, is the Executive Director of the National Center for Policy Analysis. Follow him on Twitter @AllenWest.

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.