The Melting Point

1. The Unique Burden of the Combatant Commander

Only the combatant commander stands astride the boundary of decision-making and execution.

A unique position. Combatant commanders operate at the critical intersection of policy development and military action. They advise senior civilian leaders on strategy and options, then bear the ultimate responsibility for executing those decisions, translating political will into tangible outcomes on the ground. This dual role is distinct from service chiefs or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who are outside the chain of command for operations.

Temperament matters. The personal qualities of the commander are crucial at this "melting point of warfare." Facing moments of intense pressure, uncertainty, and potential loss of life, the commander's temperament – whether bold, irresolute, judicious, or paralyzed – profoundly impacts the success or failure of missions and the fate of those under their command.

Responsibility for execution. While policy is set at the highest levels, the combatant commander is the one who must make it work. This involves marshaling forces, managing complex logistics, coordinating with allies, and making split-second decisions in dynamic environments, all while being accountable for the results, good or bad.

2. Confronting Iran: Deterrence and Escalation

Instead, the Iranians drew a lesson from it that reinforced a belief they already had: the United States was feckless.

Deterrence lost. In 2019, intelligence indicated Iran was planning attacks, suggesting deterrence had failed. Years of U.S. force drawdowns and public pronouncements about shifting focus away from the Middle East likely emboldened Iran, leading them to believe the U.S. lacked the will to respond forcefully to provocations.

Escalation cycle. Iran initiated attacks on shipping and infrastructure, culminating in the September 2019 strikes on Saudi oil facilities. The U.S. response was measured, focusing on force posture adjustments rather than kinetic retaliation. This perceived lack of forceful response reinforced Iran's belief in U.S. fecklessness, potentially contributing to further aggressive actions.

Iranian capabilities. Iran possesses a formidable arsenal of asymmetric weapons, particularly ballistic missiles, land attack cruise missiles, and drones. By 2019, these capabilities allowed Iran to achieve "overmatch" against regional neighbors, enabling a "fires war" targeting vital infrastructure and population centers, a strategy designed to inflict pain and force favorable political outcomes.

3. The Soleimani Strike: A Necessary Action with High Stakes

His ego grew enormously with his international fame, and he grew cocky, believing the United States would never target him.

A central figure. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, was the architect of Iran's regional proxy network and directly responsible for attacks on U.S. forces. His micromanagement and direct line to the Supreme Leader made him indispensable to Iran's malign activities, while his growing public profile led to overconfidence in his personal security.

Rising tensions. A series of escalating rocket attacks by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, culminating in the death of a U.S. contractor in December 2019, forced a U.S. response. While initial strikes targeted militia infrastructure, the decision was made at the highest level to target Soleimani if the opportunity arose.

Calculated risk. The strike on Soleimani in January 2020 was a high-stakes decision. While removing a key adversary leader, it risked triggering a massive Iranian response. The assessment was that Iran would retaliate, but likely not with outright war, a view not universally shared within the U.S. government. The subsequent Iranian missile attack on Al Asad Airbase, while causing no immediate deaths, demonstrated Iran's capability and willingness to respond directly.

4. Ending the ISIS Caliphate: A Tactical Success, Not Strategic Defeat

Self-protection was always a high priority for Islamic State leadership, and they had no concerns about leaving foot soldiers behind to die while they scuttled to safety.

Caliphate defeated. By early 2019, U.S. and coalition forces, enabling local partners like the SDF, had militarily defeated ISIS's physical caliphate in Iraq and Syria. This was a significant tactical achievement, the culmination of years of effort, but it did not eliminate the organization or its leadership.

Leadership dispersal. As their territory shrank, ISIS leaders, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, prioritized their own survival and dispersed to other areas, notably northwest Syria. This demonstrated their ruthless pragmatism and commitment to continuing the fight through other means, rather than making a final stand.

Baghdadi's end. Through persistent intelligence work, Baghdadi was located in northwest Syria. A complex raid was planned and executed in October 2019. The operation highlighted the capabilities of U.S. special operations forces and the importance of meticulous planning, culminating in Baghdadi's death by suicide, a cowardly end that nonetheless removed a key figurehead.

5. The Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Painful, Politically Driven Endgame

Setting a date was an enormous strategic mistake that gave renewed life to the Taliban, even as it deflated the government of Afghanistan.

Political imperative. Both the Trump and Biden administrations shared a clear political objective: ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. This led to the U.S.-Taliban agreement in February 2020, which set a date for withdrawal, a decision that significantly weakened the Afghan government and military while empowering the Taliban.

Conditions disregarded. While the agreement included conditions for withdrawal based on Taliban actions, these conditions were largely disregarded in practice. The Taliban continued attacks against Afghan forces and failed to fully sever ties with al-Qaeda, yet the U.S. withdrawal proceeded, undermining the credibility of the conditions-based approach.

Rapid collapse. The final withdrawal in 2021, particularly the decision to leave Bagram Airfield and the subsequent collapse of the Afghan government and military, was swift and chaotic. Despite warnings about the fragility of the Afghan forces and the risks of a rapid exit, the withdrawal timeline was adhered to, resulting in a painful and undignified end to a twenty-year conflict.

6. Civil-Military Relations: The Enduring Primacy of Civilian Control

In a democracy, civilians have the right to be wrong.

Fundamental principle. Civilian control of the military is a cornerstone of the U.S. republic. While friction and disagreement between civilian leaders and military commanders are inevitable and even healthy, the military ultimately serves and executes the decisions of elected and appointed civilian officials.

Advice vs. Decision. Military leaders provide their best professional advice, informed by technical expertise and operational experience. However, civilian leaders are not obligated to accept this advice. They must weigh military recommendations against broader political, economic, and diplomatic considerations, and their decisions, even if perceived as strategically flawed by the military, are final.

Navigating friction. The relationship requires trust, clear communication, and mutual respect. Challenges arise when civilian leadership lacks experience, when political considerations override strategic logic, or when there is a lack of clear policy guidance, leading to confusion and inefficiency within the military ranks tasked with execution.

7. The Importance of Planning, Adaptation, and Risk

No plan survives contact with the enemy’s main body.

Planning is crucial. Meticulous planning is essential for military operations, providing a framework for action and anticipating potential challenges. However, plans are not static; they must be adaptable to the dynamic realities of the battlefield and the actions of the adversary.

Adaptation is key. Commanders must be able to adjust plans rapidly when circumstances change. This requires a deep understanding of the operational environment, the capabilities of both friendly and enemy forces, and the ability to make timely decisions under pressure, often relying on the foundational work done during the planning phase.

Understanding risk. Military operations inherently involve risk. Commanders must assess and articulate these risks clearly to civilian leaders. Risk is not just a binary high/low assessment; it involves identifying specific threats, determining who bears the risk (units, personnel, objectives), and understanding its temporal nature. Civilian leaders ultimately decide which risks are acceptable in pursuit of policy goals.

8. Navigating Interagency Friction and Political Interference

Anyone who thinks that there is a clear divide between political calculation and strategic considerations at the highest levels of national decision-making is being naive.

Politics and strategy intertwine. At the highest levels of government, political considerations are inseparable from strategic decisions. Commanders must understand this reality and navigate the complex interagency process, where competing interests and political imperatives often influence policy and operational guidance.

Interagency challenges. Effective national security requires seamless coordination across government departments and agencies. However, turf battles, competing agendas, lack of trust, and poor communication can create significant friction, hindering the development and execution of coherent strategy, as seen during the chaotic end of the Trump administration.

Impact of interference. Political interference, particularly when uninformed by operational realities or driven by short-term expediency, can undermine military effectiveness and damage relationships with allies. Commanders must maintain professionalism and focus on executing lawful orders, even when faced with contradictory or ill-conceived directives.

9. The Enduring Threat of Violent Extremism

ISIS-K and al Qaeda are also going to have long-term presences in the region.

Persistent threat. Despite significant counterterrorism efforts and the defeat of ISIS's physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations like ISIS-K and al Qaeda remain a persistent threat in the CENTCOM region. These groups adapt, disperse, and exploit instability to maintain their capabilities and intent to conduct attacks.

Sanctuary and support. The withdrawal from Afghanistan highlighted the continued ability of groups like al Qaeda to find sanctuary and support, even under Taliban rule. This underscores the challenge of counterterrorism without a persistent presence and reliable local partners, making over-the-horizon operations difficult and less effective.

Evolving tactics. Extremist groups continue to evolve their tactics, utilizing asymmetric means like drones and exploiting ungoverned spaces. Countering this requires sustained intelligence efforts, adaptable strategies, and international cooperation, recognizing that military action alone is insufficient to address the root causes of extremism.

10. The Future of the Middle East and Global Competition

The next war, even if it’s a regional engagement, will have global effects.

Shifting landscape. The Middle East is a region of enduring strategic importance, marked by rising Iranian power, the reemergence of state actors like Syria, and the persistent threat of extremism. The U.S. shift in focus to great power competition with China and Russia is viewed with concern by regional partners, who question long-term U.S. commitment.

Great power competition. The region is a theater for global competition, with China expanding economic and potentially military influence, and Russia seeking to project power. Navigating this requires a nuanced U.S. approach that balances competing demands and leverages diplomatic and economic tools alongside military presence.

Future conflict. Future conflicts in the region are likely to be characterized by the widespread use of asymmetric weapons, contested information and cyber domains, and potentially even a nuclear component. The U.S. must adapt its capabilities and posture to deter and, if necessary, prevail in this evolving and increasingly complex security environment.

Last updated: May 15, 2025