Afghan bomb was warning to US foes

The use of America’s biggest non-nuclear bomb is meant to send a clear message

A Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb strikes ISIL hideouts in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan. EPA / US Department of Defense

Afghans living in the area where the US military dropped a massive bomb last week reported how the large explosion pierced the silence that often falls across the largely rural area. That, indeed, may be an appropriate metaphor for America’s recent foreign policy under Donald Trump. The “analysis paralysis” of the Obama administration is well-known. Barack Obama, ever the professor, spent so much time debating and discussing the finer points and potential repercussions of his government’s foreign actions with his advisers that they often failed to actually take any real actions, even when a “red line” was crossed.

Mr Trump’s few weeks in office have upended that. Across theatres where the US perceives a threat, Washington has acted forcefully. It started mere days after Mr Trump took office, when he authorised a raid on the house of a suspected leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Nearly 30 civilians were killed and the raid was widely judged a failure. But Washington had shown that it was willing to use military force.

In the past few days, that idea has been cemented. First came the attack on Syria, with Mr Trump ordering the bombing of an airbase from which a chemical weapons attack was launched. Then, a naval strike force was sent towards North Korea. Then came the use of America’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan. America’s rivals in Russia, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and even China will certainly be paying attention.

But what is the message behind these actions? Much of it is rooted in the Obama years. Mr Trump sees himself as the opposite of Mr Obama, a doer who acts when he promises to. The debacle over Mr Obama’s red lines in Syria have become a lodestar for the Trump administration – there is a collective belief that such a policy must not be hung around their necks. Mr Trump therefore is trying hard to show that he means what he says.

But there is also a more profound difference in political philosophy. Mr Obama’s reticence to use force was rooted in a belief that it ought to be a last resort, used long after diplomatic options were exhausted. Mr Trump takes the view that not demonstrating the capacity to use force only emboldens enemies. He took that view, for example, over the Iran deal, believing it only made Tehran more aggressive. So those wondering whether a new administration would be more willing to use force to defend policy will have heard the answer loud and clear.