Last night, President Obama addressed the nation to discuss the growing threat posed by ISIS. In the speech, he laid out a four part strategy, involving the use of airpower and U.S. military "advisors"; supporting Kurdish and Iraqi boots on the ground; and expanded counterterrorism efforts specifically targeting ISIS funding. Almost nothing he said in the main body of his speech was new or unexpected. Here are four quick observations.
1. Our strategy is entirely dependent on others.
The President rightly pointed out that airpower alone will not defeat ISIS. The President also made it very clear, however, there will be no American ground forces engaged in combat operations. Instead, we will be relying on Kurdish and Iraqi "boots on the ground" to coordinate with our airpower to defeat the enemy. In effect, we have ceded control over the success or failure of the mission to poorly trained, poorly equipped foreign fighters whose own objectives are more limited than ours.
Our objective is to wage a sustained global war on ISIS. The Kurds, as brave as they are, cannot wage a global, or even a regional war. They have no broad territorial ambitions. When they have secured their own region of Iraq, they will be less willing to support U.S. efforts elsewhere. The Iraqi army ran away as soon as ISIS began shooting the first time, leaving behind huge caches of American weapons for ISIS to steal. As I said in my last article, to believe that they will suddenly morph into Navy Seals and charge into battle to defeat ISIS is beyond naive. It is reckless.
This strategy has been tried before and has failed before. We provided South Vietnam with "advisors" in an effort to coordinate our air power with South Vietnamese ground forces. Eventually we had to commit huge numbers of our own men to the battle and the Vietnam war was on. When we "withdrew," South Vietnam fell within months because, ultimately, they did not have the will to fight and defeat the communist north.
Fast forward to Afghanistan. We committed special forces to coordinate with the Northern Alliance, using our air power to defeat the Taliban. Our efforts were initially successful but, as is usually the case, the enemy regrouped, launched a counter-attack, and we were forced to commit significant additional forces to hold our gains. When we withdraw at the end of this year, the Taliban will be back in power, unrestrained.
2. ISIS is in fact Islamic and a state.
One of President Obama's most forceful points was that ISIS is neither "Islamic" nor is it a "state." While I agree with his hopeful sentiments, he is plainly wrong. It would be completely wrong to paint all Muslims in the world with the same broad brush. It would be completely wrong to paint all Muslims in the Middle East with the same broad brush. That does not mean, however, that we are obligated to go door to door and separate the radicals from the moderates before going to war.
Radical, violent Islamic terrorists make up a small minority of Muslims the same way that only a small minority of Germans were members of the Nazi party. Very few Italians were fascists. Nevertheless, World War II was waged against all Germans and Italians, whether or not they were active supporters of their fascist governments. The allies made no effort to distinguish those who were complacent bystanders from their leadership. It would have been impractical to do so and ultimately would have hampered the war effort.
Such is the case here. It is the complacency of the silent majority of Muslims in the Middle East that has at least in part enabled the radicals to continue to wage war. If the moderate Muslims and moderate states in the region are not willing to take the fight to ISIS, then we should make them responsible for the consequences.
3. There was no mention of the border.
As DHS reported yesterday, ISIS is actively pursuing strategies to import Jihadis into the United States across the Mexican border. The open border remains the greatest threat to the national security of this country, and President Obama failed to mention it in his speech. There is a war going on between terrorists and our nation. One of the fronts in that war is our homeland, as was proven on 9/11. Allowing the border to remain open is the equivalent of inviting our enemies behind the lines and into our tent. It is the one weakness they can exploit to gain a decisive victory.
4. President Obama surrendered to Putin in a side note.
In a surreal moment, the President said, as a side note, that he "stood up to Russian aggression" in the Ukraine. That point was laughable, but what he said next was extraordinary. He went on to tout America's support of the "Ukrainian people's right of self-determination." Until last night, the only people who had been talking about Ukrainian "self-determination" were Putin and his allies in Eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian self-determination was decided hundreds of years ago and renewed at the end of the Cold War. The current discussion about "self-determination" is centered on whether Russian speaking Ukrainians are entitled to secede from the country and join Russia. They are fighting a war over that very issue right now, and Ukraine is losing.
I'll write more on Putin's victory in a couple of days, but suffice it to say that President Obama is surrendering Eastern Ukraine to Putin. The next step in Putin's strategy is to gain "self-determination" for the east, through "elections," and then allow the new state to join Russia. The United States and its NATO allies should have resisted these efforts, not condoned them. The President certainly did not need to telegraph our surrender of Eastern Ukraine to Russia in a speech about ISIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment