An Unreliable Umbrella
(Originally written Nov 2019)
The mid-September attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia and the sudden withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Syria in mid-October point to an uncomfortable truth that has long been apparent to American rivals and is now becoming evident to American allies: The security umbrella provided by U.S. troops and technology is at best unreliable and at worst an illusion that dissipates on first contact with reality.
The problem is that the global perception of American power has deteriorated as the United States under performs militarily and diplomatically against regional and global rivals.
Weapons such as the Patriot missile system, designed to defeat Scuds, not drones, and sold more for their profit margin than military necessity, are emblematic of the unreliable American security umbrella in the Middle East, but the deeper issue is an exhausted and over-extended military. As the attack on the Abqaiq facility made clear, the capabilities of American defensive systems have been on display in the region for so long that adversaries have had more than enough time to design methods of circumventing them. The use of cheap swarms of drones and missiles overpowered a nested network of air defenses that were state of the art but seemingly poorly deployed and undermanned.
The technical details of how the best of American military high technology was defeated by a budget air raid are less interesting than what it says about American power and influence overall in the Middle East and globally. With America’s conventional military capabilities under the microscope of enemies, allies, and rivals alike around the world for decades now, it’s no wonder that creative countermeasures are being deployed. In Afghanistan and Iraq insurgents hacked drone camera live feeds to reverse-plot the position of U.S. troops and reposition their own forces. Iran or Russia likely hacked a stealth drone to force it to land at an airfield under enemy control, and it’s believed its design has since been incorporated into the latest generation of Iranian stealth drones. On the more conventional front the strongest selling point of the Russian S series of anti-aircraft weaponry is its proven ability to defeat American stealth and high-altitude technology in the field. In short, America’s global presence has exposed its weaknesses and the world has taken notice and adapted accordingly to exploit those failings for profit and in pursuit of national interests.
In Syria the hasty removal of a small contingent of troops proved a double blow to American power. First, it underscored that the U.S. would abandon its allies without hesitation or concern for their sacrifices. Secondly, and more subtly, it made clear that we no longer have leverage over our closest allies. Unsaid in many corners is that Turkey was determined to invade the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Syria and the presence of U.S. troops did not deter them. Their rapid removal was less about giving Turkey a green light and more about getting them out of harm’s way. It’s possible that if the U.S. had refused to redeploy its troops, Turkey would have stopped short of an invasion, but in the end the American president seemingly blinked first and pulled the troops back without consultation. A more cynical or conspiratorial mind might assume this was a backhanded way of handing off responsibility for Syrian security to Turkey while feigning disapproval. The weak sanctions imposed on Turkey and then immediately lifted and U.S. support for a Russian-Turkish detente in Syria point to that as a possibility, but it would require a level of strategic thinking this administration has failed to demonstrate in the past, and in the end the damage such a maneuver would do to American prestige and credibility far outweighs any cost savings. Moreover, no goodwill was even won from the Turks as they were vilified in the American media and political echelons.
This is a problem of great concern because the perception of American influence and power quickly becomes the reality. The United States has benefited from a positive imbalance in perceived power for many years, and now the shortcomings of its military and diplomacy in action have punctured that perception. In Syria and Saudi Arabia the conversation has turned around the security of oil fields, the knock-on effects for global security, or increases in terrorism financing. While these are serious parts of the conversation, these incidents are truly emblematic of a flagging American security umbrella and how rivals are now confident enough to directly challenge the United States without fear of meaningful reprisal.
There is no simple solution to a problem of threat perception. The security dilemma at its core is about the weighing of capabilities and intent to determine threat to national interest. Intent can change fairly quickly, but capabilities take years, if not decades, to develop. Thus most countries do their best to loudly proclaim their intentions while taking great pains to hide and exaggerate their capabilities. In the case of the United States, the intentions of its national interest have been muddled beyond the strategic need to maintain hegemony, and its capabilities have been on very public display for the better part of two decades.
The first and simplest step to tackling this problem is a clear, credible, and concise policy of intent in the Middle East. Currently the Global War on Terrorism and the security of oil supplies seem to be the guiding lights of U.S. Middle East policy, and these are interests that can attract governmental allies, if not wider popular buy in. On the side of capabilities the United States requires a retrenchment and pullback of its military forces from the region. While it’s been quite clear that an overhaul of U.S. military forces is long overdue, this requires a multi-year process of withdrawals and support from dependable allies to hold together the American world order while U.S. forces recuperate. Almost 20 years of non-stop kinetic and shadow warfare spread over the entire globe has impacted U.S. forces and American prestige in ways we will never comprehend until retrenchment allows for the necessary reflection and study.
As we see in Syria, withdrawing without strategic buy-in from our allies and detente with our rivals means we’ll no longer have a seat at the table when security matters are discussed. If the U.S. continues to rely on a fully deployed military to maintain American hegemony, the umbrella our allies depend on will continue to weaken to the point where the U.S. will find itself exhausted and alone in a world that has known nothing but constant war.
