It is now three weeks since the U.S. started a war with Iran, calling the assault Operation Epic Fury (OEF). Trump promised a short campaign lasting just a few weeks, suggesting that boots on the ground would not be needed. But as I write this, the Pentagon is preparing a budget request of $200 billion for OEF. Other than a reference to stopping Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, a capability he claimed to have totally obliterated during Operation Nuclear Hammer, no rationale for OEF was given. Since Operation Nuclear Hammer was just months ago, the need now for OEF indicates a ground operation, boots on the ground, putting troops in harm’s way and signaling another long-term involvement.
On March 8, 1965, 3,500 Marines from the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed in Da Nang, South Vietnam, marking the first deployment of U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. They would be withdrawn eight years later.
Last week, on March 13, 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that “The Pentagon is moving a Marine Expeditionary Unit and additional warships to the Middle East, as the war with Iran continues. The move will help respond to the Iranian campaign of attacks against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”
In a separate dispatch, the Japan Times reported that “U.S. [is] sending more than 2,200 Okinawa-based Marines to the Middle East.”
Meanwhile, Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, has become the target of bombing and airstrikes. Analysts note, however, that to totally disable the island’s facilities would require boots on the ground. It appears now that the transfer of U.S. Okinawa-based Marines to the Middle East will serve as boots on the ground for the assault on Kharg Island, and the beginning of a ground war.
Despite claims by Trump and War Secretary Hegseth that Iran’s ability to wage war is being severely degraded, and that Operation Epic Fury will end soon, history shows that Iran can fight a sustained war even with sustained casualties, as it did in its war with Iraq, which lasted for eight years, ending in a UN-brokered ceasefire.
I remember saying to a colleague when the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq and massing troops at its border in Kuwait, “It looks like the U.S. plans to be in Iraq for a while, for once one puts those boots on the ground, it will be very difficult to extract them.” To which my colleague responded: “Don’t worry, the U.S. has learned its lesson in Vietnam; they will strike and then get out quickly.”
The U.S. did conduct “Shock and Awe,” the initial intense bombing strike against Iraq, but soon after, U.S. troops began their march into Baghdad and would remain in the country for almost nine years. The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan lasted even longer, ending in a chaotic retreat out of Kabul reminiscent of its chaotic retreat out of Saigon. No, the U.S. has not learned the lessons from Vietnam.
When President Lyndon Johnson sent troops into Vietnam, he did so after being authorized by Congress via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Likewise, when President G.W. Bush invaded Iraq, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. In contradistinction, today’s Congress has blocked any attempt to pass a resolution about the war with Iran. And despite hundreds of millions being spent daily, OEF has no endorsement from Congress.
As a taxpayer, I find this lack of accountability very troubling. Decades ago, I worked in a community-based non-profit organization. We were dependent on government grants for many of the services we provided. There are two things we had to do to assure that we were responsibly utilizing public funds. First, we had to submit a detailed line-item budget to show how expenditures were aligned with proposed program activities and services. Second, we had to submit to periodic audits from an independent auditing firm commissioned by the grant funder. This is how we demonstrated accountability in our use of public funds.
The cavalier way in which Trump and his War Secretary, Hegseth, have danced around providing a rationale for this adventurist project is an affront to the American taxpayer. And the way Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to require a rationale for OEF is an added insult, since millions in public funds are expended daily on this war.
Efforts to dress this up as a national security project are just laying bare the consequences of using war as an instrument of national policy. The emperor has no clothes. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital transit point for the world’s oil and gas supplies, is closed, triggering a spike in gas prices at the pump. Allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, have come under retaliatory attacks by Iran, leading to more instability and increasing the risk of a region-wide war. At least 13 U.S. military service members are now dead: six from drone attacks on U.S. bases in Kuwait, and six from a refueling tanker crash in Iraq; one more from injuries during a drone attack on a Saudi Arabian air base stationing U.S. forces. A school was bombed where 175 Iranian children were killed. Iran reports over 1,500 Iranians have died from these attacks. The attacks on Iran have begotten more violence, destabilizing the region and leading to global insecurities in oil and gas. So one has to ask: Are we more secure now than we were before Operation Epic Fury?
Lacking national support for OEF, Trump is now trying to jawbone European allies into joining, which is reminiscent of the U.S. effort during the Vietnam War to have European allies send troops to Vietnam as a token of support for the U.S. effort, allegedly to stop the spread of communism. We all know how that ended.
Media and public commentators have focused on speculating about what Trump will do next, ignoring the most critical question. U.S. soldiers who will be asked to put their lives on the line will want to know, “Why?” The taxpayer, who has to foot the bill for it, also wants to know the why for OEF. Trump owes our troops and the American taxpayer a rationale for OEF.
If the war against Iran were funded through his billionaire donors, he might not need to account for it. But not with public funds; not without oversight and approval from Congress.
What recourse does the American taxpayer have against this seeming malversation of public funds by the President? The midterm elections are months away yet. Meanwhile, billions will have been spent on an adventurist project that has not received Congressional review or consent. We need to ask our elected representatives, especially our congressmen, who have been given the power of the purse, to step up and exercise oversight. WHY is the people’s coin being spent on a war that has not been explained or justified?
* * *
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Asian Journal, its management, editorial board and staff.
* * *
Enrique de la Cruz, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Asian American Studies at California State University, Northridge.
great, clear and to the point.