Boots, boots, boots…
Boots, boots, boots… by Jan K. Gleiman, The Strategist
Sometimes the words of our leaders can have a telling impact on strategic outcomes—interpretations limit strategic and operational adaptability and effectiveness. That may prove to be the case with words from the US president’s most recent speech outlining a four-point coalition strategy to defeat ISIL (otherwise known at ISIS or Islamic State). Specifically, the words, ‘combat mission’ may constrain coalition leaders at all levels from taking certain actions that could mean the difference between the success and failure of the campaign. The first argument over those words is likely to be about whether or not coalition advisers will be allowed to accompany their indigenous units on combat missions.
In previous speeches about assisting Syrian rebels, the president has emphasised that he wouldn’t put ‘boots on the ground’. Retired General Anthony Zinni has openly criticised the president for that and other statements. Leaders of other coalition countries have used similar language. Though the president avoided the phrase ‘boots on the ground’ in his most recent speech, he stated that the troops deploying to Iraq will ‘not have a combat mission’. Unfortunately, leaders of other coalition countries are also likely to use the same language in order to bolster domestic support—critical, of course, to the success of any campaign…
