Small Wars Journal

Fight ISIS? You're Kidding, Why?

Sat, 12/13/2014 - 11:47am

Fight ISIS? You're Kidding, Why?

Paul Avallon

With a political eye on an electorate understandably reluctant to get involved in another foreign war, the Obama administration waited until after the mid-term elections to announce the deployment of an additional fifteen-hundred "non-combat" combat troops to Iraq in an attempt to halt the advance of ISIS.

And ho-hum, the announcement made nary a ripple in the public consciousness. It's as if, a thousand here, a thousand there, another thousand hither and yon, as long as none of those troops are coming home on litters or in caskets—with video topping the evening newscasts—no one really cares, and whatever America is doing over there in Iraq really isn't war. Is it? 

The president sure isn't calling it a war, not America's part. Rather, it's just a bit of tactical advising and surgical bombing, a minimalist approach to war-making, for any of which the president has little stomach. It's not difficult to read President Obama's mind and heart, that he's wishing ISIS could be relegated back to their once-JV status, at least for another two years, at which time he can pass off the problem to the next president.

Today, no one is calling ISIS the JV squad, and the president's additional fifteen-hundred advisers may keep ISIS from storming through the gates of Baghdad in the coming months, but no one is making the argument that this tiptoeing, combat-free strategy will push ISIS from the territory they have captured nor eliminate their threat to the rest of the Middle East.

And again, it's ho-hum, as if Americans don't even want to think about an oppressive and expanding Islamic State. The occasional beheading that pops up in the media startles us, but only for a moment, as we immediately tune it out. If we were to consider seriously the jihadists' barbaric actions in the name of the Caliphate, then we would have to accept that the Caliphate is by definition uncompromising, and as such we would have to steel ourselves to vanquish those fighting for it. Steel ourselves for war, complete war, not a couple of thousand non-combat bootless troops here and there willy-nilly.

Thrice bitten, once shy, we opt to bury our heads in the sand. We once applauded George W's lickety-split defeat of the Taliban, only to learn to regret the war during the following thirteen years of costly, failed nation-building. We once rah-rahed the quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein, only to become angry and cynical from the false justifications for the war and the ugly, embarrassing defeat it nearly brought us. And we then voted a man for president who promised to get us out of Iraq, down to the last GI, only to get us to today's ISIS.

Yes, rightly our heads are in the sand. And there isn't a national elected leader—not Democrat, not Republican—willing to make the argument for an all-out war against ISIS Islamofascism. Shy of another 9/11 jihadist attack here at home, we would not listen to one. And even in such a situation, in spite of our having learned from the failures of these past wars, I doubt that our enlightened, holier-than-thou, clean-hands culture would allow our military to fight such a civilian-sheltered enemy with the aggressive fire-with-fire brutality necessary to vanquish them, flattening their villages and leaving their lands sown with salt.  

In the meanwhile, a strategy of a few thousand bootless troops on the ground and fearful, excessively selective aerial bombing is equivalent to bringing beanbags to a gangbanger turf war. Better to stay home.

Which is exactly what the president's better instincts tell him. Except, those handful of beheadings of Americans make for bad homefront PR, and what president wants to appear a wimp? As, what president wants his legacy to forever include video of  the world's largest embassy (United States, Baghdad) burning to the ground?

Show real courage, Mr. President. The American people will not allow you to wage an all-out, bloody and costly war to defeat ISIS Islamofascism, and you are well aware that the present beanbag strategy is simply a temporary stopgap to a coming onslaught, which presents you the opportunity to make a decision that is both rational and moral. Order out of Iraq as rapidly as possible the entire American military and diplomatic presence. With specific instructions: As the last helicopter lifts from the embassy roof, the entire compound is to be leveled to rubble by explosive charges.

Sure, your critics will whine that we can't let Iraq fail, we just can't, boo hoo hoo. Your polite and reasoned argument in return, Mr. President? Five-fold:

1)  It's not your war. You were one of the few voices in 2003 against the invasion that removed the one Iraqi who could today defeat ISIS, Saddam Hussein. That was Bush's mistake, not yours.  With Saddam in power today there would be no ISIS in Iraq.

2)  It's not our oil. Why should we Americans further concern ourselves with the huge Iraqi oil reserves when we have plenty here ourselves and plenty-plus up in Canada just a pipeline away? As for the Europeans, if they're so dependent upon Iraqi oil, well good gosh, let them commit to whoop-ass on ISIS. 

3)  If the Iraqi people themselves (insurgents, homegrown and imported) once could bring the world's mightiest military power to its knees—us, in the guerrilla warfare that had us defeated until General Petraeus wrestled a victory out of it—then they surely can defeat a bunch of 7th century saber-swingers.

4)  Repeat #3 above. It's extremely important; if the Iraqis do not have the same will to fight and defeat ISIS that they had to fight us, they deserve their fate. (This, Mr. President, is bound to get a rousing five-minute standing-O from crowds coast-to-coast.)

5)  Granted, your new hands-off policy will facilitate the Caliphate Effect (an off-shoot of the Domino Theory) in establishing a swath of Islamofascism from Pakistan west to Morocco and from Turkey south to Somalia, leaving Israel a tiny atoll whose only practical self-defense would be nuclear. Because by nature you cannot accept nuke warfare (first-strike or retaliatory) as an option, you should hereby declare our borders open for mass Israeli immigration. At the same time you can commandeer all Royal Caribbean, Carnival and Princess cruise ships to do the ferrying. After all, if we Americans are welcoming as legal immigrants millions of low-skilled Third World Latin Americans, we should surely open our arms even wider for highly-educated First World Israelis who, come the Caliphate, will be true refugees.

Go ahead, Mr. President, show true grit and take and run with 1-5 above. It beats trying to futilely persuade a tuned-out American populace as to the necessity of stopping dead in its tracks the coming Caliphate Effect.

And it sure beats fighting a war. Doesn't it?

Comments

Paul Avallone

Thu, 12/18/2014 - 11:06am

Thanks, all, for your intelligent comments. You are aware, I assume, that you're the few in America who are involved in this debate, who care. I almost confuse this web site as not Small Wars but LONG Wars.

If you'd like more of my wild thoughts on that wacky Afghan War, see an OpEd of mine from a day ago at The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/16/howd-you-lose-the-wars-daddy/

I really tell the story of the Afghan War in a big novel (Second Edition just out) called Tattoo Zoo. If you haven't been to the war, it will put you there. If you were there, you'll feel it down to your bones. Writing these OpEds is fun and quick, but I believe the lasting knowledge and feel of a war is best told in fiction.
http://www.amazon.com/Tattoo-Zoo-Novel-Afghan-War/dp/1505369487/ref=sr_…?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418875023&sr=1-1&keywords=tattoo+zoo&pebp=1418875014911

I think a number of questions will be answered about myself at my book's blog: www.tattoozooblog.wordpress.com
If you write me a person email at avallonepayl@yahoo.com, I'll always answer.

Again thanks for giving me hope that there are thoughtful people concerned about how we're doing the wars all wrong.

48REPINS

Tue, 12/16/2014 - 4:51pm

Paul, why don't you think about who "created" those countries, and their responsibility in that creation? Remember the line Sykes-Picot, after the falling of the Ottoman Empire? Any creation has its own secondary effects, then: Why not let that London and Paris take full responsibility of their "invention" and we, non-creators get free of any task over there. We cannot be the saviors of the facts and consequences that other countries make; don't you feel something like worn down appearing always like the firefighter of the Universe? Enough is enough. It doesn't mean that we will not accomplish some other problems, treaties and accords, e.g. Iran and Ukraine, but please, stop behaving like The Lone Ranger, because we are not that character.

Bill M.

Tue, 12/16/2014 - 3:15pm

In reply to by Wolverine57

We have a pseudo-intellectual culture in much of today's military that rejects your very valid point.

"After all, war is not the realm of benevolence--it is a realm of violence and the whole point of engaging in war is to subdue he enemy's will to fight...Changing military doctrine so that soldiers become construction workers, or worse, baby sitters straddles the insane.....If the history of warfare has shown us anything, it is that breaking the enemy's will is best facilitated by constant physical attrition."

Even according to our own doctrine war is socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. It is waged between two or more opponents with irreconcilable wills, where each attempts to impose its will upon the other forcefully. The U.S. has tragically reinterpreted warfare as a form of humanitarian operation, where putting military pressure is secondary to winning over the population under the false belief that we can win over the population, followed by the false belief that even if we did, it wouldn't matter when the adversary's will to continue fighting (from its various safe havens) to continue fighting has not been broken.

We like to dress warfare up in a costume of kindness that is a façade that diverts us from its true purpose. In so doing it results in prolonged conflicts that are anything but humane, and result in long term damage to society writ large. Social norms are destroyed after a decade of war, war becomes the norm instead of an aberration.

We achieve our objectives through a political settlement, which normally requires a substantial level of force to bring those opposed to us to the table, or by destroying their capacity to continue waging conflict (Germany in WWII). I have found little historical evidence that our COIN doctrine has been successful, and the historical cases it makes reference to as case studies (Malaya for example) also employed a high level, though relatively surgical, of violence. Concur with the author's comment that we should not commit forces if we're not prepared to what is necessary to defeat ISIS.

Furthermore, assuming we do this, we will not be able to consolidate victory without a longer term feasible political solution for the region. After success in Iraq, we failed to consolidate our win long term because of the political solution we left in place. We rightfully get accused of being excessively idealistic, and these ideas conflict with commonsense.

Wolverine57

Tue, 12/16/2014 - 1:44pm

In reply to by zshubbard

ZSH,the COIN that you suggest we adopt says (6-11, 3-24) the American Way bias may be unhelpful, (7-14)as our leaders prepare to indirectly inflict suffering on their soldiers and marines. At A-24 the manual says "Movement on foot, sleeping in villages, and night patrolling all seem more dangerous than they are." That Manual also says be cautious and proportional. Attack the insurgents only when they get in the way. Raiding from remote secure bases does not work. Is this the doctrine that you suggest? The President's policy says degrade and destroy ISIS. The US military end game is the destruction of ISIS. He uses the term counterterrorism strategy, not counterinsurgency. COIN is population-centric. Counterterrorism is not. There is a difference. Counterterrorism (JP 1-02)..Operations that include offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism. The President has said we will not nation-build. A.E.Stahl writes in the Armed Forces Journal, February 2011, "Hunt To Kill": "In increasingly complicated dilemmas, some states are finally and overtly coming to grips with the reality that blunt military responses are the path to progress..After all, war is not the realm of benevolence--it is a realm of violence and the whole point of engaging in war is to subdue he enemy's will to fight...Changing military doctrine so that soldiers become construction workers, or worse, baby sitters straddles the insane.....If the history of warfare has shown us anything, it is that breaking the enemy's will is best facilitated by constant physical attrition." I agree. We do have historical experience with a strategy of attrition. By 1972, 92% of the people of Vietnam were under government control. The historical lessons to be lifted are not the sensational, but the day-to-day successes. With ISIS, I believe, we would initially face some of our own equipment in the hands of ISIS. This situation has moved beyond insurgency. We agree with American boots on the ground.

zshubbard

Tue, 12/16/2014 - 9:03am

Paul, I think you're absolutely correct at the terrifying mission creep that is occurring in the fight against ISIS, that thousand or so troops added here or there without a clear CONOPs or end state, since that end state is ever evolving, I'm sure.

I do think we can give operational support to the IA and Kurdish Peshmerga to see if they can win their own battles. But when it comes down to it, the only way defeat ISIS to deploy "boots on the ground" to seize and hold terrain. So, if we deem this a true threat to U.S. national interests, then we need to deploy infantry and other combat "boots on the ground." The trend among all Presidents is to do it with them minimum amount of soldiers possible (see: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I'm sure I'm missing a few). For those troops to stop another and different insurgency from rising, we need vast amounts of troops to ensure there is so territory for them to operate safely from.

@Wolverine57 I don't think a war of attrition would really work. I believe that would just create more jihadist, and people who want to take up arms. I think the focus of this war should begin with the destruction of ISIS strongholds, equipment, command & control, and instrastructure. I think we need to truly adopt COIN. But with the ROE that supports the destruction of ISIS and the protection of American & civilian lives. More like David Galula's "Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice" or GEN Petraeus and GEN Mattis' FM 3-24.

Wolverine57

Mon, 12/15/2014 - 7:51pm

Paul, lets adopt a strategy of attrition for ISIS similar to that in Vietnam. Body count is a measure of success. I am a Vietnam Vet with 4 trips south. (I was 1st SFG Airborne, Okinawa) I say this so as to not be confused with some 5-jump commando or chair borne campus Ranger who has only studied Vietnam. The President's policy is degrade and destroy ISIS. We take care of ISIS with a strategy of attrition. To a strategy of attrition, we add preemption. (The GI who can't shoot first is at a terrible disadvantage and doesn't live long.) To attrition, let me bring it to the brutal and lethal tactics of search and destroy. To the search and destroy we add overwhelming firepower as in "lay down some hate" (Tyrone Woods, Benghazi). Fire power says: Hey, GI, we got your back! To the firepower we add "pile on" (Gun Fighter Emerson, Vietnam) until a decision is reached. For the Warrior in a gun fight, it is I win, you lose. For the artillery man, it is "On Target, Fire for Effect." Every engagement has its own "shock and awe." Let these Muslim thugs in Toyotas go hide under their 4 wife's burkas.