Retired Generals: US Set For Failure in Iraq and Syria Without Clear Strategy
Retired Generals: US Set For Failure in Iraq and Syria Without Clear Strategy by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Washington Post
Without a clear strategy from the White House and the return of a robust defense budget, the United States is set for failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, argued former generals James Mattis and John Keane, as well as former admiral William Fallon in congressional testimony Tuesday.
The United States “needs to come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm strategic stance in defense of our values,” Mattis, a former commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He went on to highlight the damage done by widespread budget cuts across the Department of Defense. “No foe in the field can wreck such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today,” Mattis said.
Referring to threats from Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria and al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen under the umbrella term “radical Islam,” Keane lamented what he called a disjointed approach to combating U.S. enemies in the region.
“We are reduced to a very piecemeal effort,” said Keane, referring to the current drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. He also said airstrikes in Iraq and Syria were supporting “unproven” local ground forces.
“This approach almost certainly guarantees we will be incrementally engaged with one radical group after another with no end in sight,” Keane added.
Mattis raised concerns about strategy in Syria, saying U.S. political objectives remains unclear. He also said the time to support moderate rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime as well as the Islamic State had “passed.”
Fallon, also a former CENTCOM commander, pushed for continued engagement in the Middle East as well as a residual force in Afghanistan after 2016. He also emphasized the need to enable local partners in the region, including the new government in Iraq…
Today, on Fox News General Wesley Clark (ret) made a rather interesting notation. He noted words to the effect that when he asked those in the Middle East Region about what’s going on with ISIS, they responded to the effect that these fellows are the only one’s willing to fight against the Shiites, Iran, and Hezbollah. And, as he noted, we have a second strategic problem — this group (ISIS) has essentially been birthed by those whom we note as our Allies in the region — including Saudi Arabia. He also noted that the Iranian advisers to Maliki were doing everything possible to prevent his agreeing to the preconditions needed to enable American troops to remain in that country.
They wanted the U.S. out so they could move to further Shiite control of Iraq — and they grossly overestimated their sides capabilities for conducting operations deep in Sunni territory and grossly underestimated the Sunni capability for defeating them.
Americans need to view the defeat of the Iranian Backed Iraqi Shiite Army as a positive event, not a negative one. We need to insure that the costs emanating from that debacle are borne by Iran, not the U.S. In short, we need a new way of thinking about handling and benefiting from conflicts in the Middle East.
We also need a reality check. The Sunni Nations are not going to act in any manner which furthers Iranian / Hezbollah / Shiite control of Arab Lands. Lets be realistic. ISIS simply does not pose a current meaningful level of threat to this nation warranting attacking them in a manner that alienates the Sunni nations and peoples in that region. They would view such attacks against ISIS as the U.S. acting militarily to further the anti-Arab Imperialistic dreams and actions of the Iranians and their allies.
The U.S. needs to proceed in the Middle East guided by a strategic mind set, not a tactical mind set. Our objective should NOT be to defeat ISIS — at least for the foreseeable future. Instead it should be the following:
1. Keep the Kurdish Areas secure from ISIS or Shiite Control by directly providing arms, ammunition, and training to their forces, and to support them with Air Power as needed to secure their positions and control over the territory they need to economically exploit their oil resources.
2. For the foreseeable future support the Iraqi Shiites with arms, ammunition, training, and Air Support they need to defend their areas against ISIS offensive movements against them — insuring that they pay for the weapons they purchase. They are oil rich and can afford the costs. We should not, however, provide them any armaments that would allow them to carry out (actually attempt) deep penetration operations into Sunni territory, as they will be defeated in that effort. Our interest is in keeping them fighting at some consistent low level that drains their Iranian Allies by involving them in a protracted war that goes nowhere.
3. The U.S. needs to scale back its attacks against ISIS forces in the Sunni Areas, unless we are interdicting their efforts against the Kurds. The Saudis. Jordanians and others are not interested in having their Sunni cousins in that area brought under control of an Iranian Arab Shiite Kingdom. Facilitating that result by involving this country in another protracted war cannot provide this country with any strategic benefit — just costs and frustration.
4 The U.S. needs to stop conducting Air Operations against ISIS or other Sunni groups fighting against the Syrian Shiites / Hezbollah / Iranians in Syria — absent supporting the Kurds in their geographical areas of Syria. Send ISIS a message. probably through Qatar — stay away from the Kurds, don’t conduct operations against any other nation other than Syria or against the Shiites / Hezbollah in Lebanon and we will not interfere with your operations in Syria.
Our objective should be to effectively drag Iran, Hezbollah, and others on that team into a long protracted war that drains and damages them — and use ISIS to carry out those operations and incur the costs.
The last thing we need to do is follow any advice that the U.S. insert ground forces (combat Units) into that quicksand. Haven’t we learned from Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon 1982, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
None of the warring parties in that part of the world presents an existential threat to this country, thus we must act accordingly. We have more important areas of concern on which to spend our tax providing defense dollars, including on programs at home that provide for American employment.
As was recently noted, when your enemies (or at least those who are not one’s friends) are killing each other, don’t interfere.
Does every strategic approach carry risks, most certainly; but we couldn’t perform and demonstrate more strategic incompetence than we have for the last decade plus in the Middle East and for the last five decades overall.
Bill C–while we wonder and debate if and or if not “we lost” WE have other serious internal issues other than IS.
BTW based on the links below we seem to have a more serious internal security issue than anything IS is throwing at us lately.
Can anyone at SWJ explain this? We chase those that support with money and or propaganda US citizens supporting IS BUT this is exactly what again?–not the same thing?
1. what are they doing in Moscow
2. who supports them with money
3. who supports them politically
Are these the exact same questions the US government asks when we are dealing with IS? Seems we have a blind eye on the fringe right?
American group pushing Texas independence confirms to @parfitt_tom it met a Donetsk rebel representative in Moscow:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11381821/Rebel-foreign-minister-of-Donetsk-looks-to-Texas-for-union-of-separatists.html …
How Putin Is Infiltrating European Politics
http://uk.businessinsider.com/putin-is-infiltrating-europe-2014-12 … pic.twitter.com/z3Msjp7iFq
American anti-Semite & frmr KKK leader David Duke photographed together w/ Aleksandr #Dugin (right)
v @A_SHEKH0VTS0V
pic.twitter.com/eZTZE4Xk9U
Re: my reply to CB Calif earlier, Outlaw (below) takes me to task for not putting things into proper perspective — and he is right to do so.
In the West v. the Rest contests of today, in which the West seeks to (1) transform other states and societies more along modern western lines (for example, in the Greater Middle East) and (2) prevent reversals of such gains already made (in places such as Russia); in this context:
a. The Reversal-of-Transformation Problem presented by Russia — due to its mature nuclear capability and Putin’s stated intention to use it — this represents a far greater problem; much more so than does
b. The Resistance-to-Transformation Problem presented by such Greater Middle East entities as ISIS, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, the Shiites, etc. (Who are not as important and have no such devastating resistance capability.)
So what Outlaw is suggesting — RE: OUR RELATED PROBLEMS outlined in my first paragraph above — is that we:
a. Get our heads out of our proverbial anatomy and
b. Intelligently acknowledge and address the more pressing concern (Russia).
Thus, the West v. the Rest — transformation v. resistance — BOTTOM LINE:
a. “US Set for Failure in Iraq and Syria Without Clear Strategy.” Wrong focus.
b. “US Has Already Failed in Russia.” Number One strategic imperative/problem/concern.