America, Iraq and The Case for Strategic Consolidation
- Jul 16
- 4 min read
Updated: Jul 31
With the American People Exhausted from Endless War, Here’s Why Washington Needs a New Grand Strategy
Op-Ed Written by Jett James Pruitt
On July 14, 2026, President Donald Trump formally announced the withdrawal of all remaining U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of September 2026. Speaking alongside Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaid at the White House, Trump clearly stated “we don’t think we need the military anymore,” while also providing that the United States will “protect [Iraq] if need be.”
This announcement is an extension of a 2024 agreement negotiated by the Joe Biden administration, in which the United States agreed to gradually scale-down its presence of 2,500 soldiers stationed to combat the Islamic State (IS). The U.S. maintained only a small contingent of military advisors by the time of Trump’s announcement on Tuesday.
For most Americans, the end of 23 years of continuous military occupation comes with a sigh of relief. Scholars at Brown University estimate the Iraq War resulted in more than half a million military and civilian deaths, as well as cost the U.S. nearly $3 trillion between 2003 and 2023. Moreover, despite initial enthusiasm at the beginning of the war when the U.S. launched a “shock and awe” campaign against Sadaam Hussein, 61 percent of Americans ultimately believed invading Iraq was a mistake as of 2023.
Granted, the war shifted from an intervention to induce regime change to a counterinsurgency operation against a diverse array of private militias, Ba’ath Party loyalists, and (beginning in 2014) the Islamic State. The latter phase of the Iraq War arguably aligned with America’s national security interests and was necessary to maintain regional stability throughout the Middle East and Europe. Yet, the initial drive to invade Iraq was not only based on the faulty premise of Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but a serious miscalculation of America’s grand strategic interests.
What is grand strategy? To put it one way, it is the idea that military and foreign policy leaders should not only ask themselves “Can America win this war,” but also “Will America benefit if it does win this war?” Under this framework, grand strategy calls for considering whether the use of brute force, rather than diplomacy, would undermine America’s economic or national security interests in the long-term.
Grand strategy does not amount to pacifism or appeasement, since brute force is sometimes necessary to preserve a nation’s core interests. However, it compels leaders to weigh the measures available to them, and then decide which option would be most effective in delivering the most beneficial outcome for all nations involved.
While the Trump administration has devised an elegant conclusion to the Iraq conflict, it is arguably not thinking in grand strategic terms with respect to ongoing operations against Iran. To date, the U.S. has expended 40 percent of its Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile interceptors, one third of Tomahawk cruise missiles, and more than half of Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) since the start of Operation Epic Fury. Furthermore the U.S. has spent between $80 billion to $100 billion on Epic Fury as per an internal assessment within the Pentagon, not to mention losing 14 personnel in the conflict so far.
America has gained nothing with its war against Iran. Since directly targeting the country, the Islamic Republic remains in power and continues to apply pressure on the U.S. military via the Strait of Hormuz. While American diplomats have worked assiduously to establish a permanent ceasefire, hostilities between the two nations persist after nearly 5 months of conflict. Not to mention, Washington already crippled Iran’s nuclear capabilities with Operation Midnight Hammer in July 2025, thus rendering sustained air and naval strikes excessive.
America simply cannot afford to burn through its military arsenal and put the lives of servicemembers in jeopardy with the risk of opening another ‘forever war’ in the Middle East.
In the future, what must American leaders do to ensure the United States does not become embroiled in another quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or (potentially) Iran, while also countering adversaries and preserving U.S. national security in a multi-polar order?
The answer is strategic consolidation.
This idea combines the concept of ‘peace through strength’ with utilizing soft power to outflank and diplomatically isolate immediate adversaries (e.g., Russia, Iran, and North Korea), while simultaneously redirecting resources to expand America’s military arsenal and repair industrial production gaps.
The Trump administration could have merely leveraged American partners in the Persian Gulf (including Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) to contain Tehran’s influence following Midnight Hammer. Now, Gulf allies are frustrated with the U.S. for not consulting them before attacking Iran and for an apparent lack of communication throughout diplomatic talks.
By all objective measures, the United States remains a military juggernaut. Yet, in order to ensure America remains the world’s preeminent military and economic force, Washington must learn how to balance the need to confront adversaries with preserving its existing arsenal for future conflicts.
What are your thoughts? Please share this article with your comments.
Jett James Pruitt is a Native American, Pulitzer Prize-nominated author of the bestselling book THROUGH THE EYES OF A YOUNG AMERICAN. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of TheGenZPost.com and a political strategist specializing in Generation Z voter trends. He is currently a B.A. International Politics student at The University of London Institute in Paris. His next book, THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE: What America's Political Parties Must Do To Win Over Generation Z, will be released in major bookstores worldwide early 2027
Comments