Trump Risks Falling into 'Airpower' Trap

In the first 100 days of his second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has shown a willingness to lean on airpower when his administration decides that military force is necessary abroad.

- CHARLES WALLDORF

So far, the second Trump administration has launched limited airstrikes in Somalia and carried out a weeks-long air campaign against the Iranian-aligned Houthis who rule most of Yemen. The president has also threatened direct strikes against Iran itself should talks on a new nuclear deal collapse.

This turn to airpower for Trump makes sense to me. Airpower is cheap when compared with ground wars, and it usually comes with fewer casualties for those conducting the strikes. This helps explain why U.S. leaders, including Trump as a self-proclaimed "anti-war president," typically find it attractive. But if the Trump administration is not careful, it could fall into what military strategists informally call the "airpower trap." This happens when the stated objectives of military force are too big for airpower alone to achieve, potentially leading to a face-saving escalation of conflict that could—if history is a guide—draw in ground forces from the U.S. or their local allies.

U.S. presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all fell into this trap. In Vietnam, the Balkans, and Syria, respectively, all ended up with far bigger wars than they bargained for, with consequences for civilian casualties, international peace, and damage to America's reputation abroad.

As an expert on U.S. national security policy and the Middle East region, I believe the Trump administration is in danger of falling into the airpower trap in Yemen and could potentially do the same in Iran should it elect to use direct force against Tehran. Recognizing this military and historical risk, and opting for some kind of off-ramp from continued airstrikes, might be the best hope the U.S. government has to avoid a further escalation into full-scale war.