A Four-Point Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State by Michèle Flournoy and Ilan Goldenberg, Washington Post
There are two theaters in the conflict with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and they are not defined by international borders. The first is “ISIS-stan” in western Iraq and eastern Syria. Here the U.S.-led coalition is making progress and has rolled back significant portions of the territory held by the terrorist group. But the gains have come from predominantly Kurdish and Shiite forces, and there are limits to how far these groups can advance into Sunni heartland areas and be accepted by local populations. Rolling back the Islamic State is not enough — to sustain these gains, we must focus on the security forces and governance mechanisms that will replace them.
The second theater lies farther west, where Syria is embroiled in a horrendous civil war. The United States has assumed that this problem is not as important and has heretofore avoided involvement except for pursuing diplomatic negotiations. That’s a mistake. In Syria and Iraq, the challenge of countering the Islamic State is bound up in the broader civil wars that have created governance and security vacuums and allowed the group to thrive. These vacuums are the disease; the Islamic State is the most serious of many problematic symptoms.
We propose a strategy that applies a consistent, long-term approach to Iraq and Syria, based on four interlocking effort.
First, the United States should increase its support to those local armed groups that are acceptable to U.S. interests, whether they are fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad or the Islamic State…
Second, we must increase our overall military support. This should include expanding strikes and raids to take out Islamic State leaders and gain intelligence that stops terrorist attacks outside Islamic State territory…
Third, we must do more to get important external actors on board. In the near term, the greater U.S. commitment we propose will appeal to key partners, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia…
Finally, we should focus on governance and politics by providing support to local municipal structures that can provide services and outgovern the extremists…
Comments
I can't help wondering if Mrs. Flournoy was playing the song, "I like dreaming" in the background when she wrote this.
She accurately claims there are two theaters of war. One is the war between pro-Assadists and anti-Assadists and the other is between the anti-Islamic State and pro-Islamic State forces. It is refreshing these addresses this, because most of the so called experts tend to artificially isolate the Islamic State from the greater whole. Yet, even this is view is overly simplistic and misleading, but I trust she understands that.
She argues somewhat accurately that we need to look beyond the 5 meter target of militarily defeating the IS and focus on developing the security forces and governance mechanisms that will replace them. So easy to say, so hard to do. She offers no viable courses of action to actually do this.
She argues for “a long term approach.” In my opinion, I see this long term approach as a way to avoid accountability. The proponents of this approach can tell the impatient American people it will take decades, which then leads to continuation of ineffective strategies indefinitely (or until we run out of political will to continue). It will certainly take time, but if the going in position is a slow burn approach, we will take inadequate steps and create opportunities for all the actors opposed to our interests (IS, Assad, Russia, Iran, al-Nusra, etc.) to achieve their goals. Our indecisive strategy to support anti-regime forces (probably best avoided from the get go), created opportunities for Russia to intervene and change the game.
She states there needs to be four interlocking efforts are not necessarily wrong in theory, but they’re impractical.
1. Providing more support to resistance groups sounds feasible as a short term goal, but the majority of those groups, even so called moderates (whatever that really means) have there own interests that are not aligned with ours. They’ll govern by purging the areas of the undesirables, much like the Kurds did to the Arabs in many parts of Northern Iraq after we invaded. That is a short term answer that buys short term stability and longer term risk. She argues this approach worked during the Sunni Awakening, which is a defendable argument to a point. Nonetheless, where the Sunni Awakening worked, is where the Islamic State strived a few years later.
2. Increase our direct military support against IS. I champion that one, even knowing it will accomplish little long term, it will set them back on their heels. She also argues using for using long range missiles to deter Assad, Russia, and Iran? Russia has many military means to deter us as we have to deter them. I have idea what she means by this. Using long range missiles demonstrates a lack of political will to assume risk, and once we demonstrate that, we are the one that are more likely to be deterred.
3. It is important to get external actors onboard. Agreed, but that requires U.S. leadership, not leading from behind.
4. Her final argument is to focus on governance and politics by providing support to local municipal structures that can provide services and outgovern the extremists. I have mixed feelings about this one. While it is a given, we have repeatedly failed in this area.
Who are the Shiite's?
Some reports note Iran lead the taking of Fallujah which seems remarkable because their 56th Special Forces Brigade got hammered by Al-Nusrah a few months back. So I am curious if we are merely fronting Iran's ambitions while new reports surface they are in 8 states in Germany buying or trying to buy WMD technology including nuclear weapons technology and materials.
I have wondered all along if Obama / Biden who as Senators disliked a Shiite PM, Maliki because he was an Iraqi nationalist. Obama claims that early next year a pro-Iranian will be the new Iraqi PM. I can not tell if Obama was claiming, forecasting or bragging.
I hate to think all those Arab peoples who have died, millions made homeless, millions turning the EU inside out to accommodate the hubris of this "war". Arab Christians being murdered on the level of genocide simply to advance Iranian aspirations for a "socialist" new world order vision of rapprochement they have pursued with Iran since Carter was President.
This is the same plan as has already been tried in Afghanistan and Iraq isn't it? It (3-24 COIN as sold by CNAS) didn't work before why would it be different now?
Could it be that points 1 & 2 are what drive enemy recruiting? Point 3s has been done with no effect. Point 4- essentially recreating Iowa in the Middle East- can't work.
How about this.
Cut the border between Iraq and Syria and then take Mosul.
Tell the Kurds to join in the attack or US aid stops.
Tell the anti-Assad Syrian "moderates" to stop fighting the government.
Help the Russians, Iranians and Syrians destroy IS in Syria.