The ongoing dustup between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the Saudi execution of a Shiite cleric (Nimr al-Nimr) and three other Shiites reflects another foreign policy foul up by the Obama administration. Instead of tamping down sectarian tensions in the Middle East, the Obama administration (and its predecessor, the George W. Bush administration) made it easier for conflict to flare up. A "democratically elected" government was established in Baghdad which, not surprisingly was Shiite dominated because Iraq is majority Shiite. But adequate protection for the interests of Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and other ethnic or religious groups wasn't ensured. So Iraq degenerated into sectarian warfare, with the Sunni-dominated ISIS readily able to seize vast amounts of Sunni Iraq without facing much of a fight. For the same reasons, it's been impossible to organize a military force in Iraq that can dislodge ISIS, except at the margins.
The Obama administration stood by the sidelines as Syria descended into civil warfare, without having a discernible, let alone coherent, policy. The only line in the sand drawn by President Obama was to warn Bashar Assad against using poisonous gas, and when Assad did just that, Obama flinched. His flinch paved the way for Vladimir Putin to start mucking around in Syria, a role that Putin has now expanded to a much larger military commitment to Assad. Iran has been supporting Assad, because he is a member of the Alawites, a religious group affiliated with the Shiites. So we have Russia and Iran working against the Saudis and their allies, who have been supporting Sunni interests in Syria. The war in Syria is now firmly sectarian. The ideals of the Arab Spring died a hard death there.
In Yemen, Shiite rebels have booted the Sunni ruler, and Iran is supporting the Shiite side of a civil war against the Saudi-supported Sunni side. The U.S. used to have a Special Forces presence in Yemen, but those troops reportedly have left the country. So we have in Yemen a second proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The Obama administration has been trying to sell the nuclear accord with Iran as a great diplomatic achievement. But the Saudis are nervous about the agreement, apparently believing that it doesn't truly restrain Iranian nuclear ambitions. So, even while Obama thinks he's getting somewhere with Iran, he's losing influence over the Saudis. It shouldn't be a surprise that the Saudis are getting feistier. They evidently don't believe they can count on the U.S. One would think that the U.S. might have restrained the Saudis from executing Nimr al-Nimr. But either the administration didn't know the execution was scheduled (which would seem an intelligence failure) or it didn't understand the importance of the execution to the Iranians (which would seem an intelligence analysis failure).
At the same time, the nuclear accord appears to have emboldened the Iranians. They fired missiles from a ship that was hardly a mile away from an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. They've announced they'll increase their ballistic missile capabilities, apparently in violation of a UN resolution. But neither action generated a response from the U.S. other than commentary by official spokespersons along the lines of "naughty, naughty."
The President reportedly is holding back on sanctions against Iran because he wants to implement the nuclear accord and strengthen the hand of Irans moderates. The problem is we don't really know who is in control of Iran (another intelligence failure). Implementing the accord means rolling back sanctions and allowing Iran to sell more oil internationally and otherwise engage in more international trade. This will increase Iran's financial strength. Who really controls that strength--Iranian moderates, Iranian radicals or Iranian terrorists? No wonder the Saudis think they may have to go their own way. If Obama is, in effect, going to strengthen Iran, the Saudis have to find ways to push back.
President Obama is dead set on avoiding conflict. That much is clear to everyone. Assad steps across his line in the sand and he does nothing. Iran engages in provocative behavior after the nuclear accord, and he does nothing. Putin has Russian jets bomb American-supported moderate rebels in Syria and Obama does nothing. While almost no one in America wants our ground troops back in the Middle East, it's clear that the administration's policies are heightening sectarian tensions in the Middle East. Just as the Obama administration was unduly focused on al-Qaeda until ISIS literally blasted its way into the administration's consciousness, it's now too obsessed with combating ISIS and not focused enough on the root problem of reducing sectarian tension.
The Middle East could degenerate into regionwide sectarian warfare in a flash--indeed, it's already partly there. ISIS has been able to hold large amounts of territory only because sectarian tensions have been allowed to flare up. It's important now to try to get the Iranians and Saudis to stand down. The more Obama appeases Iran, the more provocative Iran becomes. The recent Iranian Persian Gulf missile firing and ballistic missile program boost should be met with sanctions and a delay in the implementation of the nuclear accord. The Iranians need to be firmly told that if they want to be re-admitted to international society, they have to be good citizens. At the same time, the U.S. should quietly reassure the Saudis that it stands with them, and that they need to cool their jets. Saudi arms should be twisted if necessary. In other words, Obama has to stop appeasing and get tough with the toughs in the Middle East.
If the U.S. can lower sectarian animosity in the Middle East, it may be able to put together a working alliance to defeat and eventually destroy ISIS. But if sectarian tensions keep increasing, there will be no workable solution for dealing with ISIS, and more conflict will likely erupt, further eroding American interests and influence. ISIS could survive and perhaps even prosper. It seems unlikely, however, that Obama, now firmly ensconced in his Ivy League populated bubble, will somehow connect with the realities of foreign relations. That's a shame, because it means that he, like George W. Bush before him, will leave a foreign policy mess for his successor.
Showing posts with label Islamic State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic State. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
A Generation of Terrorism
French President Francois Hollande called the recent terroist attacks in Paris an "act of war." And so they are, provoking French aerial assaults on ISIS's facilities in Syria. The United States and other Western nations will be ramping their mliitary efforts in Syria and Iraq against ISIS.
The young adults the military will seek to recruit for this new round of fighting were toddlers and kindergartners at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks. An entire generation has grown up in the era of terrorism, with no end in sight to the violence.
ISIS, and in particular its leadership, have taken a pummeling from Western air power in recent months, and suffered setbacks in the battlefields. Most likely, the self-proclaimed caliphate in ISIS-controlled territory will eventually buckle under the assault of the multi-national force that has assembled against it, although this process will need time.
But we know from our years-long struggle with al-Qaeda that terrorist organizations have a hydra-like ability to metastasize. Indeed, ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda. If the ISIS caliphate is destroyed, little ISIS cells sprinkled around the world will likely continue the insanity. Western air power can't drop smart bombs on every disgruntled, radicalizing teenager.
After a generation of struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, it's clear that military measures aren't alone enough to suppress organizations like ISIS or al-Qaeda. Even though al-Qaeda has lost its hideouts in Aghanistan, it has resurfaced in a number of other places. Killing and capturing terrorists, and seizing their territory and assets, hasn't stopped them.
The key to destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others of this ilk is to destroy their ability to recruit new members. More than money, territory, weapons or other resources, terrorists need new recruits. As long as they can recruit, their wars, suicide attacks and other outrages can continue indefinitely. Cut off their recruits, and they're finished.
The coalition of nations aligned against terrorism needs to focus more, and probably much more, attention on undermining the terrorists' recruiting process. This includes aggressive measures, such as arresting and imprisoning the preachers of violence, prosecution of those that engaged in or aiding terrorist activities, shutting down terrorist websites and social media accounts, and hacking into and destroying terrorist databases and computer systems. Knock the bad guys off the Internet, and in today's online-dependent world, they're probably done for.
Also necessary are kinder and gentler measures that address the reasons why disaffected young people answer the call of the terrorists. Tolerance and acceptance for immigrants and those of differing religions may be diminishing. But more is needed, not less. Young people who might recruited by the killers need to be brought into the mainstream of society, not marginalized or rejected. Offer them respect and dignity, with a fair chance in the work place, and the purveyors of hate will be left behind in the dust.
Look at today's toddlers. Look at how cute and lovable they are. Think about what it would be like to see them, fifteen years from now, climbing in the future equivalent of a Humvee, hoping that there's no IED or ambush waiting for them down the road. Think of them coming home with blown off limbs or PTSD. Think of them being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Three volleys and Taps aren't much of a substitute for a vibrant, live young person. If we can deprive ISIS and other terrorists of recruits, we win the war.
The young adults the military will seek to recruit for this new round of fighting were toddlers and kindergartners at the time of the 9/11/01 attacks. An entire generation has grown up in the era of terrorism, with no end in sight to the violence.
ISIS, and in particular its leadership, have taken a pummeling from Western air power in recent months, and suffered setbacks in the battlefields. Most likely, the self-proclaimed caliphate in ISIS-controlled territory will eventually buckle under the assault of the multi-national force that has assembled against it, although this process will need time.
But we know from our years-long struggle with al-Qaeda that terrorist organizations have a hydra-like ability to metastasize. Indeed, ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda. If the ISIS caliphate is destroyed, little ISIS cells sprinkled around the world will likely continue the insanity. Western air power can't drop smart bombs on every disgruntled, radicalizing teenager.
After a generation of struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, it's clear that military measures aren't alone enough to suppress organizations like ISIS or al-Qaeda. Even though al-Qaeda has lost its hideouts in Aghanistan, it has resurfaced in a number of other places. Killing and capturing terrorists, and seizing their territory and assets, hasn't stopped them.
The key to destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others of this ilk is to destroy their ability to recruit new members. More than money, territory, weapons or other resources, terrorists need new recruits. As long as they can recruit, their wars, suicide attacks and other outrages can continue indefinitely. Cut off their recruits, and they're finished.
The coalition of nations aligned against terrorism needs to focus more, and probably much more, attention on undermining the terrorists' recruiting process. This includes aggressive measures, such as arresting and imprisoning the preachers of violence, prosecution of those that engaged in or aiding terrorist activities, shutting down terrorist websites and social media accounts, and hacking into and destroying terrorist databases and computer systems. Knock the bad guys off the Internet, and in today's online-dependent world, they're probably done for.
Also necessary are kinder and gentler measures that address the reasons why disaffected young people answer the call of the terrorists. Tolerance and acceptance for immigrants and those of differing religions may be diminishing. But more is needed, not less. Young people who might recruited by the killers need to be brought into the mainstream of society, not marginalized or rejected. Offer them respect and dignity, with a fair chance in the work place, and the purveyors of hate will be left behind in the dust.
Look at today's toddlers. Look at how cute and lovable they are. Think about what it would be like to see them, fifteen years from now, climbing in the future equivalent of a Humvee, hoping that there's no IED or ambush waiting for them down the road. Think of them coming home with blown off limbs or PTSD. Think of them being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Three volleys and Taps aren't much of a substitute for a vibrant, live young person. If we can deprive ISIS and other terrorists of recruits, we win the war.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Everyone's a Loser in Syria
With Russia's entry into the bag of dog doo that is Syria, the chattering classes are all astir over who's up, who's down, who's winning and who's losing. Russia is the usual nominee for winner. But what exactly has Russia won? It can't win the war. Between ISIS, the Kurds and various other rebel groups, most of Syria is no longer in the hands of the Assad regime. Russia can't afford to commit the tens of thousands of ground troops, equipment and air power that would be needed to retake and hold all this ground, and the Assad regime's army appears too depleted to mount the major offensives that would be needed. All Russia can do is prop up an Assad rump regime in western Syria that would be under constant attack. That would mean an indefinite commitment to a war with no end in sight and no possibility of a Russian victory.
Russia's puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, isn't a winner; he has only avoided becoming a big loser. His diminished army can't reconquer what he's lost in Syria. Russian air strikes will allow him to bolster his lines and tighten up his defenses. But a few dozen Russian air craft don't begin to provide enough air power to support an offensive that could retake all of Syria. At the same time, Assad's authority is diminished. Now, he will have to do whatever Putin tells him to do, and like it, as well.
The Iranians, who apparently negotiated an alliance of sorts with Russia, have had their weakness revealed. For all their bluster and unacknowledged efforts to build nuclear weapons, they don't have the strength to prop up a two-bit dictator in a small nation. They had to call in first, their Hezbollah allies, and then Russia. Maybe the Iranians are claiming a propaganda victory. But they just ceded power to Vlad the Invader, and it's generally a bad idea to give power to an aggressive despot. Has the Islamic Iranian government forgotten that one reason Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi allied himself so closely with the United States was because the Russians wanted to take over Iran after World War II?
The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has cozied up to Russia and allowed Russian military planes to fly over Iraqi air space in order to reach Syria. Maybe it had no choice; its Iranian handlers could have told it to cuddle up to Putin. But, reality is you can't be an ally of America and an ally of Russia. If the Iraqis snuggle up to Putin too much, America may not provide as much military equipment or intelligence to Iraq as it once did. It may see less value in supporting a Shiite government in Baghdad and perhaps more value in supporting the Kurds.
The Sunni rebel groups--ranging from ISIS to the various metastasizes of al Qaeda to the tiny and shrinking handful of moderate rebels supported by the United States--are ships out of luck. They can't win, not with Russian military assets located in and protecting western Syria. They will be battered by Russian air power, and will have to hunker down.
Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies have quietly been supporting various of Assad's opponents, hoping to unseat him and install a Sunni-friendly government. That ain't happening now, not with Russian soldiers in Latakia.
The Kurds have enjoyed notable success in Syria, carving out safe havens for themselves and others who aren't Sunni or Shiite crazies. But Russian air power will likely preclude further Kurdish gains. The Kurds will have to concentrate on holding what they have.
Turkey has been fighting Russia for centuries. Now, with Russian military aircraft in Syria, the Russians just flanked Turkey and can hit it from two sides. Not that Putin has expressed any unfriendly intentions toward Turkey, but given the centuries of war between these two nations, nothing needs to be said.
Israel has been fighting various Russian allies almost since its inception. Never, however, have Russian military assets been so closely positioned to Israel. Had Iran been so brazen as to station military aircraft in Latakia, Israel's more advanced air force would have swarmed in the next morning before dawn and walloped the warm living yogurt out of the Iranians. But Israel cannot attack Russian forces. It can only watch, and hope that Syria proves to be a hopeless morass for Russia.
And last, but not least, the United States has seen its modest influence in Syria diminish even more. By propping up Assad, Putin precludes any possibility of an American victory. Not that it matters since, at this point, America isn't even really engaged in Syria. The Obama administration issues a steady stream of press releases about Syria, but it's doing little more than talking. Since it's not engaged in Syria, it doesn't have the leverage to get the Russians out. Hopes that Russia will join hands with the U.S. in attacking ISIS are delusional. ISIS has weakened America's position in the Middle East. Why would Putin want to weaken ISIS, which is doing the dirty work for him? All he needs to do is prop up Assad, his puppet in Syria, while ISIS and America batter away at each other, neither able to conclusively defeat the other.
In the end, the absence of anyone strong enough to impose peace and order in Syria means that the country will be de facto partitioned. That's what happened to Yugoslavia. It's what's happening now in Iraq. The flood of refugees into Europe will continue. The truth is everyone is a loser in Syria.
Russia's puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, isn't a winner; he has only avoided becoming a big loser. His diminished army can't reconquer what he's lost in Syria. Russian air strikes will allow him to bolster his lines and tighten up his defenses. But a few dozen Russian air craft don't begin to provide enough air power to support an offensive that could retake all of Syria. At the same time, Assad's authority is diminished. Now, he will have to do whatever Putin tells him to do, and like it, as well.
The Iranians, who apparently negotiated an alliance of sorts with Russia, have had their weakness revealed. For all their bluster and unacknowledged efforts to build nuclear weapons, they don't have the strength to prop up a two-bit dictator in a small nation. They had to call in first, their Hezbollah allies, and then Russia. Maybe the Iranians are claiming a propaganda victory. But they just ceded power to Vlad the Invader, and it's generally a bad idea to give power to an aggressive despot. Has the Islamic Iranian government forgotten that one reason Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi allied himself so closely with the United States was because the Russians wanted to take over Iran after World War II?
The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has cozied up to Russia and allowed Russian military planes to fly over Iraqi air space in order to reach Syria. Maybe it had no choice; its Iranian handlers could have told it to cuddle up to Putin. But, reality is you can't be an ally of America and an ally of Russia. If the Iraqis snuggle up to Putin too much, America may not provide as much military equipment or intelligence to Iraq as it once did. It may see less value in supporting a Shiite government in Baghdad and perhaps more value in supporting the Kurds.
The Sunni rebel groups--ranging from ISIS to the various metastasizes of al Qaeda to the tiny and shrinking handful of moderate rebels supported by the United States--are ships out of luck. They can't win, not with Russian military assets located in and protecting western Syria. They will be battered by Russian air power, and will have to hunker down.
Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies have quietly been supporting various of Assad's opponents, hoping to unseat him and install a Sunni-friendly government. That ain't happening now, not with Russian soldiers in Latakia.
The Kurds have enjoyed notable success in Syria, carving out safe havens for themselves and others who aren't Sunni or Shiite crazies. But Russian air power will likely preclude further Kurdish gains. The Kurds will have to concentrate on holding what they have.
Turkey has been fighting Russia for centuries. Now, with Russian military aircraft in Syria, the Russians just flanked Turkey and can hit it from two sides. Not that Putin has expressed any unfriendly intentions toward Turkey, but given the centuries of war between these two nations, nothing needs to be said.
Israel has been fighting various Russian allies almost since its inception. Never, however, have Russian military assets been so closely positioned to Israel. Had Iran been so brazen as to station military aircraft in Latakia, Israel's more advanced air force would have swarmed in the next morning before dawn and walloped the warm living yogurt out of the Iranians. But Israel cannot attack Russian forces. It can only watch, and hope that Syria proves to be a hopeless morass for Russia.
And last, but not least, the United States has seen its modest influence in Syria diminish even more. By propping up Assad, Putin precludes any possibility of an American victory. Not that it matters since, at this point, America isn't even really engaged in Syria. The Obama administration issues a steady stream of press releases about Syria, but it's doing little more than talking. Since it's not engaged in Syria, it doesn't have the leverage to get the Russians out. Hopes that Russia will join hands with the U.S. in attacking ISIS are delusional. ISIS has weakened America's position in the Middle East. Why would Putin want to weaken ISIS, which is doing the dirty work for him? All he needs to do is prop up Assad, his puppet in Syria, while ISIS and America batter away at each other, neither able to conclusively defeat the other.
In the end, the absence of anyone strong enough to impose peace and order in Syria means that the country will be de facto partitioned. That's what happened to Yugoslavia. It's what's happening now in Iraq. The flood of refugees into Europe will continue. The truth is everyone is a loser in Syria.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
How To Beat ISIS
It's clear that conventional warfare won't beat ISIS. The Iraqi Army is a joke, and not a very funny one. Whatever it does, it doesn't fight. The Shiite militias in Iraq can't be expected to succeed in the mostly Sunni areas of Iraq now controlled by ISIS, because they present too much risk of sectarian conflict. The U.S. isn't going to send in ground troops to fight for the Baghdad regime (nor should it). The Kurds, like the Shiites, can't effectively take and hold Sunni majority areas. So how to beat ISIS?
Stop fighting World War II. There isn't a conventional force available that can realistically be expected to beat ISIS, and probably won't be one for the foreseeable future. Instead, hoist the Islamic insurgents on their own petard. Sponsor insurgency against ISIS.
The problem ISIS has is that it is trying to establish a caliphate--an actual country representing the promised land of ISIS's ideology. ISIS doesn't merely conquer. It endeavors to establish governments, social order and a functioning economy. If it succeeds at nation building, its legitimacy will be heightened.
The United States, although the most powerful nation in the world, is in the uncomfortable position of being weaker in Iraq and Syria than ISIS. Time to take a page from insurgents going back to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-Tung. When you're weak, go asymmetric. America doesn't have armored columns to roll into ISIS-land. The armor was surrendered by the Iraqi Army to ISIS. Giving the Iraqis more conventional weapons may turn out to be provisioning ISIS even more. Remember that to this day, Iran flies American F-14 and F-4 fighter-bombers.
Instead, America should foment rebellion against ISIS. This would be rebellion by the Sunni population in the areas where ISIS governs. ISIS imposes a very harsh, medieval form of Islam, complete with diverse and sundry outrages such as televised beheadings, burnings, shootings, and so on. As time passes, more and more of the population under ISIS's heel will likely harbor desires to turn their Kalashnikovs on their draconian overlords. Organized nations provide easy targets for insurgencies, since governments have to operate openly. Their facilities, personnel and infrastructure can all be attacked. ISIS would expend substantial resources trying to defend itself internally, leaving fewer resources for further territorial aggresion. Predictably, ISIS would respond to insurrection harshly, and that in turn would harden hearts and minds among the oppressed. The rebellion would continue apace.
Of course, American-supplied weapons for such an insurgency could some day be turned against America. That was a problem in Afghanistan, when the CIA helped to arm and train Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet occupation. But would we be better off with a Soviet/Russian controlled Afghanistan today? What would a guy like Vlad the Invader (you know, that Putin fellow) do if he had Afghanistan as a launching pad for further territorial aggression?
We have no effective conventional options in Iraq. Let's go unconventional. Let's go asymmetric.
Stop fighting World War II. There isn't a conventional force available that can realistically be expected to beat ISIS, and probably won't be one for the foreseeable future. Instead, hoist the Islamic insurgents on their own petard. Sponsor insurgency against ISIS.
The problem ISIS has is that it is trying to establish a caliphate--an actual country representing the promised land of ISIS's ideology. ISIS doesn't merely conquer. It endeavors to establish governments, social order and a functioning economy. If it succeeds at nation building, its legitimacy will be heightened.
The United States, although the most powerful nation in the world, is in the uncomfortable position of being weaker in Iraq and Syria than ISIS. Time to take a page from insurgents going back to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-Tung. When you're weak, go asymmetric. America doesn't have armored columns to roll into ISIS-land. The armor was surrendered by the Iraqi Army to ISIS. Giving the Iraqis more conventional weapons may turn out to be provisioning ISIS even more. Remember that to this day, Iran flies American F-14 and F-4 fighter-bombers.
Instead, America should foment rebellion against ISIS. This would be rebellion by the Sunni population in the areas where ISIS governs. ISIS imposes a very harsh, medieval form of Islam, complete with diverse and sundry outrages such as televised beheadings, burnings, shootings, and so on. As time passes, more and more of the population under ISIS's heel will likely harbor desires to turn their Kalashnikovs on their draconian overlords. Organized nations provide easy targets for insurgencies, since governments have to operate openly. Their facilities, personnel and infrastructure can all be attacked. ISIS would expend substantial resources trying to defend itself internally, leaving fewer resources for further territorial aggresion. Predictably, ISIS would respond to insurrection harshly, and that in turn would harden hearts and minds among the oppressed. The rebellion would continue apace.
Of course, American-supplied weapons for such an insurgency could some day be turned against America. That was a problem in Afghanistan, when the CIA helped to arm and train Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet occupation. But would we be better off with a Soviet/Russian controlled Afghanistan today? What would a guy like Vlad the Invader (you know, that Putin fellow) do if he had Afghanistan as a launching pad for further territorial aggression?
We have no effective conventional options in Iraq. Let's go unconventional. Let's go asymmetric.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Obama's Irrelevance
Barack Obama is becoming irrelevant. With a Republican-controlled Congress, he cannot implement much of his agenda. When he tries, he has to ally himself with the Republicans, as he recently did on trade policy. The result was to aggravate the Democrats in Congress, who used the moment to extract concessions of their own. Now, the Republicans don't like Obama, because he's a Democrat. The Democrats don't like Obama, because he's not really a Democrat. And Obama finds himself without any real friends in Washington. Not that anyone has real friends in Washington, except maybe their dogs.
ISIS does its best to give the President opportunities to shine. With every atrocity, the extremists provide another excuse to drop a smart bomb or authorize a Special Ops raid on the hideaway of some senior nasty guy. But in the war against terrorism, there is no Omaha Beach, no Bastogne, no bridge at Remagen, no unconditional surrender. And there won't be much opportunity for a President to build a lasting legacy.
The President would like very much to pivot toward Asia. And smaller Asian nations, watching China literally construct territory in the South China Sea, would like America to swivel their way. But the increasing chaos of the Middle East keeps sucking the President into its vortex. He dreams of detente with Iran, seemingly unaware that making nice nice with the ayatollahs will probably increase the desire of Saudi and Gulf State Sunnis to support Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Syria (possibly including ISIS) in order to counterbalance growing Iranian power. A gain in stability could be met with an increase in instability.
But even as Obama recedes into the background, the Republicans can take no comfort. They will achieve little in Washington without control of the White House. And they're bogged down by a mosh pit full of Presidential hopefuls, none of whom have captivated the electorate. Perhaps they, too, are fading into irrelevance.
ISIS does its best to give the President opportunities to shine. With every atrocity, the extremists provide another excuse to drop a smart bomb or authorize a Special Ops raid on the hideaway of some senior nasty guy. But in the war against terrorism, there is no Omaha Beach, no Bastogne, no bridge at Remagen, no unconditional surrender. And there won't be much opportunity for a President to build a lasting legacy.
The President would like very much to pivot toward Asia. And smaller Asian nations, watching China literally construct territory in the South China Sea, would like America to swivel their way. But the increasing chaos of the Middle East keeps sucking the President into its vortex. He dreams of detente with Iran, seemingly unaware that making nice nice with the ayatollahs will probably increase the desire of Saudi and Gulf State Sunnis to support Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Syria (possibly including ISIS) in order to counterbalance growing Iranian power. A gain in stability could be met with an increase in instability.
But even as Obama recedes into the background, the Republicans can take no comfort. They will achieve little in Washington without control of the White House. And they're bogged down by a mosh pit full of Presidential hopefuls, none of whom have captivated the electorate. Perhaps they, too, are fading into irrelevance.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Fighting ISIS: Are We Ready To Invade Syria?
As Congress mulls the issue of authorizing the President to wage war against the Islamic State, there is a lot of discussion of how much involvement U.S. troops should have. Should they be involved in training, advisory roles during combat, or actual combat? But these may put the cart before the horse. Before talking about where on the battlefield U.S. troops should be located, we should talk about what it would take to win the war.
The Islamic State's attractiveness to its young, disaffected recruits is that, more than anything else, it is a caliphate--an actual geographic location where Islam in its supposed purest form can prevail. ISIS offers a promised land to go to, a place where you can not only go yourself, but take your family and raise your children (as some jihadists have done). You aren't just fighting for a cause. You and your family can live a life of holiness and purity.
The caliphate is a safe haven for ISIS jihadists. Defeating ISIS requires conquering its territory--all of its territory, in Iraq and in Syria. There is no debate over whether U.S. troops should operate in Iraq--they already are, and nobody argues they shouldn't. But the elephant in the discussion is what to do if the U.S. and its allies succeed in pushing ISIS out of Iraq and back to its lair in Syria. America currently has no proxy troops to attack and seize the ISIS heartland in Syria. No other forces in Syria--the Assad regime, the moderate rebels, non-ISIS Islamic extremists, the Kurds, or anyone else--can defeat ISIS in Syria. But if ISIS is able to maintain its safe haven in Syria, it can persist and even renew its conquering ways if and when America tires of endless troop commitments in the Middle East. The only way to suppress ISIS is to seize control of its safe haven in Syria.
Simply authorizing the President to wage war against ISIS for three years, as he has requested, only tells ISIS that it needs to hold the fort in Syria for the next three years. Under present circumstances, it may well be able to do that. One reason the U.S. lost the Vietnam War was it had no way to effectively control Communist safe havens in Laos and Cambodia. Not having a strategy for eliminating ISIS in Syria precludes victory. We need to hear from the President and other proponents of waging war against ISIS how the war will be won in Syria.
The Islamic State's attractiveness to its young, disaffected recruits is that, more than anything else, it is a caliphate--an actual geographic location where Islam in its supposed purest form can prevail. ISIS offers a promised land to go to, a place where you can not only go yourself, but take your family and raise your children (as some jihadists have done). You aren't just fighting for a cause. You and your family can live a life of holiness and purity.
The caliphate is a safe haven for ISIS jihadists. Defeating ISIS requires conquering its territory--all of its territory, in Iraq and in Syria. There is no debate over whether U.S. troops should operate in Iraq--they already are, and nobody argues they shouldn't. But the elephant in the discussion is what to do if the U.S. and its allies succeed in pushing ISIS out of Iraq and back to its lair in Syria. America currently has no proxy troops to attack and seize the ISIS heartland in Syria. No other forces in Syria--the Assad regime, the moderate rebels, non-ISIS Islamic extremists, the Kurds, or anyone else--can defeat ISIS in Syria. But if ISIS is able to maintain its safe haven in Syria, it can persist and even renew its conquering ways if and when America tires of endless troop commitments in the Middle East. The only way to suppress ISIS is to seize control of its safe haven in Syria.
Simply authorizing the President to wage war against ISIS for three years, as he has requested, only tells ISIS that it needs to hold the fort in Syria for the next three years. Under present circumstances, it may well be able to do that. One reason the U.S. lost the Vietnam War was it had no way to effectively control Communist safe havens in Laos and Cambodia. Not having a strategy for eliminating ISIS in Syria precludes victory. We need to hear from the President and other proponents of waging war against ISIS how the war will be won in Syria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
