CNAS Announces Formation of ISIS Study Group
CNAS Announces Formation of ISIS Study Group (Press Release)
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) announced the creation of its ISIS Study Group, which will be charged with examining options for addressing the problems created by the self-described Islamic State. The ISIS Study Group includes a bipartisan set of foreign policy and national security experts, including former high-ranking Administration officials, former generals and ambassadors who served in the region, current and former military personnel, journalists, and Senators. CNAS CEO Michèle Flournoy and CNAS President Richard Fontaine will chair the ISIS Study Group. CNAS Middle East Security Program Director Ilan Goldenberg will serve as Director of the ISIS Study Group.
“ISIS continues to carve out a proto-state for itself in the vacuum of the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars, and poses a significant threat to Americans at home and abroad,” said Goldenberg. “Current efforts to counter ISIS require a re-examination particularly in light of the Russian intervention in Syria, the growing migration crisis in Europe, and the collapse of the DOD program to train and equip Syrian rebels. In the year since President Barack Obama committed the United States to ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ ISIS, the group has suffered some setbacks in Iraq and Syria. However, it has also expanded its international reach, metastasized to form offshoots across multiple regions, and increased its perceived momentum. We formed the ISIS Study Group to provide a timely, relevant, and actionable strategy to make the U.S. effort to counter ISIS more effective.”
The ISIS Study Group will convene five workshops over the next six months with all of its members. The ISIS Study Group is charged with developing a holistic strategy to address the challenges represented by ISIS. The ISIS Study Group’s efforts will culminate in a final report written by CNAS’ regional and security experts. The report will be released in the spring or summer of 2016.
The full list of ISIS Study Group members is below:
Hon. Rand Beers
Dr. Erica D. Borghard
Shawn BrimleyAmb. Ryan C. Crocker
Melissa Dalton
William C. Danvers
Brian Fishman
Hon. Michèle Flournoy
Richard Fontaine
Ilan Goldenberg
Nicholas A. Heras
Hon. Kathleen H. Hicks
Dr. Kimberly E. Kagan
Brian Katulis
Col. Valery C. Keaveny, Jr. (USA)
Dr. Joshua M. LandisSen. Joseph I. Lieberman
Hon. Derek H. Chollet
Dr. Steven A. CookDr. Marc Lynch
Lt. Col. Peter McAleer (USMC)
Dr. William McCants
Hon. James N. Miller
Dr. Meghan L. O’Sullivan
Gen. (Ret.) David H. Petraeus
Dr. Kenneth M. Pollack
Paul Scharre
Loren DeJonge Schulman
Julianne Smith
Andrew Tabler
Dr. Stephen Tankel
Frances F. Townsend
There is already an ISIS Study Group. We’ve been around for two years now. http://isisstudygroup.com/
Hate to rain on a parade but a simple question–why do we have IS study groups when the problem has been there since we got there in 2003–actually the Iraqi Salafist insurgency against Saddam began in 1991 and we never saw it coming.
Secondly we urgently need to understand the complete failure of the US Ic and military intel side in not completely understanding exactly what we were seeing in say 2005/2006 when COIN took us in a completely different direction –and assisted in masking the entire problem that we were in an UW guerrilla war.
IS is a Sunni problem and has always been a Sunni problem–lastly until we seriously push back on the IS UW info war that is the main recruiting tool all the study groups in the world is not going to make a dent.
We talk a a great game but somehow we fail to act ie the info war–right now social media and individual groups such as the Ghost Security Company are far more active and successful than all of the combined US government actions and or individual study groups.
Fully understand the concept of UW non linear warfare in support of political warfare being driven by Russian, China, Iran and yes even the IS and we will be a lot further along than we are now.
And realize only the regional players can resolve IS as well as the global Sunni community.
What a waste of thought power when the problem has starred us in the face since 2003 when the first complex IED hit a US vehicle fired by a Salafist group that had been fighting Saddam since 1991–and we never saw it coming…….
Some of the best work done and it was not a study group especially in the 2004-2007 era was the CT group at West Point.
I would highly recommend that of there is any money available that the IC and academic types go back into the DOMEX database Harmony and really translate key selected documents–you will learn far more about the Salafist insurgency and QJBR/AQI now IS than any study group can come up with.
Start with the over 400 page handwritten journal and related CDs captured when we had the leader of the IAI in 2006 but released him due to the fact no national level agency showed any interest.
Lets start with a deep analysis of our inherent IC failures in Iraq before we start studying IS–and there were many way to many.
I lost any dwindling respect I had for CNAS when they released a detailed report explaining why Saudi Arabia won’t pursue nuclear weapons if Iran goes nuclear. The report (“Atomic Kingdom”, February 2013) convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Saudi Arabia will, in fact, pursue a nuclear deterrent if Iran achieves one. I’ve also been underwhelmed by their fixation on “offset strategies”. There are some encouraging names on the list (Petraeus, Crocker, McCants), but there are others on that list who fail to inspire my confidence based on past ridiculous things they’ve said or done. I’m underwhelmed by the prospects for CNAS to produce anything of real value as a result of this project.
Edited:
Consider the following attempted breakdown re: the Outlaw and COL Maxwell discussion below:
Entities such as ISIS and Russia, it would appear, are:
a. Using unconventional warfare (“activities to enable a resistance or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow a government or occupying power through and with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla force in a denied area.”).
b. In support of political warfare (“the purpose of political warfare is to isolate, erode, manipulate, exhaust, wear down, attrit, overthrow, reduce, replace, or create conditions to coerce a belligerent government or regime to acquiesce to national objectives, without going to war.”).
c. In support of their (common?) national/political objective (of preventing the U.S./the West from transforming outlying states and societies, such as those of Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, more along modern western political, economic and social lines).
Thus, the problem that we need to address is how to overcome these such disruptive practices of ISIS, Russia, etc.
Thus, the objective becomes to:
a. Use counter-unconventional warfare.
b. In support of (counter?) political warfare.
c. So as to cause entities such as ISIS, Russia, etc. to stand down from/be defeated re: their such disruptive practices (outlined at UW and PW above)?
COL Maxwell below said:
“Outlaw: We will see if DOD gets serious. This is Congress directing DOD to get serious. The only problem is that DOD cannot do it alone and perhaps should not be in the lead. The US government has to decide if it is going to take political warfare and unconventional warfare seriously and operate in the modern world as it really is and not as we would wish it to be. Our enemies sure do take it seriously.”
Let’s try to break this down a bit. First, to address the modern world from what I believe is the perspective offered by COL Maxwell here. This being that:
1. The modern world IS NOT (much as we would like it to be) a world in which everyone loves the U.S./the West, a world in which everyone wants the U.S./the West to be its leader, and a world in which everyone wants to see the U.S./the West (a) gain greater power, influence and control, this, via (b) the transformation of other states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines. Rather,
2. The modern world IS (in stark contrast to our dreams/desires noted at “1” above) a world that does not see the U.S./the West in such a favorable light, does not necessarily wish to see the U.S./the West in the lead, and does not wish to see the U.S./the West (a) gain greater power, influence and control throughout the world; this, via (b) the transformation of other states and societies more along more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
Thus, it becomes important for the U.S./the West to:
a. Wake up to the fact of a resentful, jealous, scared, envious and, generally speaking, “opposed” modern world. And to:
b. See the actions being undertaken by many of the actors of this modern world from this “opposed” — and definitely not on the same sheet of music — perspective.
Next, we must understand that the current “opposed” modern world mirrors, in many ways, the “opposed” modern world of the recent past, to wit: the “opposed” modern world of the Old Cold War. With, however, one important exception. This being that, in the New Cold War, it is:
a. The U.S./West now that is in the expansionist mode. And it is:
b. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, ISIS, etc., who are now, in one way or another, in a prevention/containment/obstructionist/roll back mode.
Conclusion:
Given this “modern world as it really is,” to wit: the “opposed” Reverse/New Cold War world outlined above; this reality (as per COL Maxwell’s suggestion above?) must guide our strategy, must guide our thinking and must guide our efforts today; much as this “opposed” Reverse/New Cold War realty guides the strategy, the thinking and the efforts of our contemporary enemies?
Thus, such things as the “need for,” and the “how to” — re: “unconventional warfare,” “political warfare,” etc. — these, likewise, must be guided by the “modern world as it really is today,” to wit: the “opposed” Reverse/New Cold War outlined above?
It is highly unlikely that the same thinkers and thinking who helped bring us to this place, will also lead us out.
As per my discussion below of “the world as it actually is,” to wit: a Reverse/New Cold War world in which:
a. The U.S./the West seeks to gain greater power, influence and control via the transformation of other states and societies more along modern western lines. And a world in which:
b. Other entities (Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, etc.) work, in one way or another, to prevent the U.S./the West from achieving, via these methods, this such objective.
In this light, note the following March 20th comments of GEN (ret.) Petraeus — a member of the new CNAS ISIS Study Group announced here:
” … the #1 long term threat to Iraq’s equilibrium — and the broader regional balance — is not the Islamic State, which I think is on the path to being defeated in Iraq and pushed out of its Iraqi sanctuary. The most significant long term threat is that posed by the Iranian-backed Shiite militias. If Daesh is driven from Iraq and the consequence is that Iranian-backed militias emerge as the most powerful force in the country — eclipsing the Iraqi Security Forces, much as Hezbollah does in Lebanon — that would be a very harmful outcome for Iraqi stability and sovereignty, not to mention our own national interests in the region.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/20/petraeus-the-islamic-state-isnt-our-biggest-problem-in-iraq/
Do we agree with GEN (ret.) Petraeus here?