As the steady drumbeat of war gets louder, I am reminded of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for." There is no doubt that The Caliphate (a.k.a. ISIS) is a brutal, evil organization bent on spreading violence throughout the world. There is no doubt that The Caliphate is using a form of violence that is beyond sickening to any civilized person. There is no doubt that The Caliphate would like to take over the entire Middle East and attack the United States. But as we get closer to war, we should be certain that our strategic objectives will not harm our national interests in the long run, and the arguments in favor of war, as well as the proposed strategies being considered, are not compelling.
Most Congressmen favor some form of intervention, be it airstrikes or some limited use of special forces in support of the Iraqi Shiites and Kurdish Peshmerga. Their fear is that The Caliphate will attack us sooner or later if we do not intervene. It is unremarkable, however, that yet another Islamic terrorist group wants to attack the United States and it should come as no surprise to anyone. In fact, The Caliphate is one of many groups which, if given the chance, would obliterate our country. The steps we take at home to secure our nation from one group does not suddenly change just because a new group enters the picture. That aside, whether we choose to fight The Caliphate or not, it will not change their desire to attack us. While attacking The Caliphate may diminish their ability to project power, it also may not. Terrorism is a tactic deployed specifically because traditional warfare is impossible. It is not at all certain that defeating ISIS will make us safer at home.
Moreover, the strategies being considered are not likely to lead to victory. As I wrote a few weeks ago, airstrikes alone, or even in concert with limited ground forces, will not be effective in defeating the enemy. Halt the advance for a time - yes - defeat - no.
Airplanes cannot occupy the desert. Special forces cannot occupy Tikrit, or Mosul, or any other Caliphate strong hold. That requires a regular army and, in this case, one that is specially trained in counter-insurgency. Welcome back to the days of The Surge, roadside bombs, IEDs, and snipers. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the American people would stand for such a redeployment, the enemy knows it, and so the strategy is doomed to fail.
Nor are the Kurdish Peshmerga or Iraqi Army going to occupy these areas for us. The Peshmerga interests are limited to Kurdistan and do not extend to territory outside their ethnic region. They have neither the resources, manpower, nor the inclination to fight a Sunni insurgency in perpetuity. We certainly didn't and so we withdrew. The Iraqi Army is even worse. They turned and ran at the first sign of battle, leaving behind huge caches of American weapons and tanks for ISIS to seize. To trust the Iraqi Army to "fight harder next time," is beyond naive. It is reckless.
Eventually someone else will have to occupy Iraq. It will come down to America or the U.N. or some coalition. The Caliphate has shown itself to be an extremely determined enemy. Whatever else we prepare for, we should be prepared to fight an insurgency for a decade or more should we choose this route.
More importantly, however, defeating ISIS (assuming that's even possible), upsets the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. Yes, they are horrifically violent. But they are only marginally more violent than the rest of the terrorists in the Middle East. As the battle lines sit now, ISIS is at war with Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, and Al Qaeda. In fact, there are some factions within Al Qaeda that are in pitched military battles with ISIS at this very moment. If we intervene and defeat ISIS, we absolutely must consider from a strategic perspective who that benefits the most. I would argue that it benefits Al Qaeda and Iran the most. Al Qaeda has serious competition for resources and soldiers from ISIS. They have lost their monopoly on anti-western, Islamic Jihadism. They are literally killing ISIS fighters to reassert themselves in the region. They are also getting killed in the process.
Likewise, Iran is already exercising hegemony in the region, but faces a serious threat from ISIS. While they have not committed all of their forces to defeat ISIS yet, they certainly will if they believe their interests are threatened. Thereafter, they will have very little opposition in the Middle East and can continue to pursue their anti-western agenda unimpeded. I submit to you that a nuclear armed Iran poses a much greater threat to national security than 30,000 or so Jihadis in Toyota pickup trucks. The inability of these various factions to coexist creates a strategic opportunity for the United States which, if turned to our advantage, can make us more secure at home.
I typically disagree with President Obama on most things, but I have to agree with his cautious approach to this crisis. "Doing nothing" may in fact be the best strategy, and I have serious misgivings about my Republican friends bashing the President for proceeding delicately. "Bombing them back to the stone age," as Ted Cruz has suggested, is not even possible and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation. ISIS already lives in the stone age and bombs will do little to change that. John McCain's strategy is even less compelling: "kill them all." Ok, with what? Are we going to use nuclear weapons? How many soldiers are we going to commit to this "strategy," and what will happen when we leave? We cannot "kill them all," as was conclusively demonstrated by our past counter-insurgency efforts in the region. They simply lay down their weapons, melt back into the desert and reemerge when we leave. Unless we are willing to exterminate unarmed men who look like ISIS fighters, there will always be a remnant patiently waiting us out.
The vitriolic calls to arms are not productive. To be successful in this region of the world, we first have to recognize the extraordinary and ancient complexities at work. Any long term strategy must take into consideration the ultimate balance of power we would like to achieve in the Middle East. It is not going to be regional democracy and we will have to choose sides. I see no evidence from hawkish Republicans that they have thought this through any better than President Obama has.
For now, we should proceed deliberately, but cautiously, securing our borders here at home and increasing the focus of our intelligence efforts on terrorism. Arming the Kurds, and even deploying special forces to aid friendly factions as President Obama has already done, will help stem the tide. But at the moment, choosing Iran and Al Qaeda over ISIS is a reckless strategy for which we may ultimately pay a much higher price.
No comments:
Post a Comment