Donald Trump Will Defeat ISIS
Donald Trump Will Defeat ISIS by Andrew Exum, The Atlantic / Defense One
And it will be mostly due to the work of his predecessor.
The dysfunction at the highest levels of the American government right now obscures a dramatic reality: Donald Trump is going to defeat the Islamic State, and Americans need to be fine with that.
Like most of the people reading this, I have been so completely absorbed by the drama at the White House over the past week that its been easy to lose track of what’s taking place on the ground in the Middle East, where U.S. troops, diplomats, and intelligence professionals continue to work by, with, and through local forces to destroy the Islamic State.
When President Obama turned the affairs of state over to President Trump on January 20th, the Islamic State was in full retreat across Iraq and Syria. This was no accident: In the fall of 2015, while I was serving as the head of the Pentagon’s Middle East policy shop, the Obama administration ramped up its campaign against the group—and began to see the effects of that escalation when Iraqi forces retook Ramadi in December of 2015.
Over the course of a very difficult summer of 2015—one in which both Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria had fallen under the black flags of the Islamic State—civilian and military planners noticed an opportunity: For the first time since their campaign began in 2014, the U.S. and coalition forces surrounding the Islamic State were in a position to squeeze it from all directions.
When I came back into the Department of Defense in 2015 after a two-year sojourn away, I was struck by how well the Islamic State moved men, weapons, and materiel across the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. This allowed them to apply pressure to the places where the forces in opposition were weakest. It also allowed them to mass their own limited forces in places where they could overmatch their opposition.
If we could figure out a way to apply pressure to the group from multiple directions and cut off its key supply routes, that would create real dilemmas for them.
And so that’s what we did…
🙂 A defense of the Obama strategy. Argument: POTUS will defeat ISIS because of the strategy he has inherited.
My question is can we win a war of exhaustion? Not attrition, but exhaustion. We should think about Dau Tranh in Vietnam.
“You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours, and in the end it will be you who tires of it” Ho Chi Minh (1969)
Henry Kissinger:
“We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition; our opponents aimed for our psychological exhaustion.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20039369?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (See the top of page 214.)
In “wars of exhaustion” (such as those indicated by COL Maxwell below?), the relative value of what each party seeks to achieve, and how well their populations are prepared to support these such causes; this would seem to be of exceptional importance.
Thus, with the Vietnam War, and with our wars in the Greater Middle East today also (such as those against ISIS, AQ, the Taliban, etc.):
a. What the U.S./the West sought/seeks to achieve might fall under the heading of “expansion”/ “imperialism;” to wit: the gaining of greater security and prosperity for one’s country by transforming and assimilating other states and their societies. In stark contrast,
b. What one’s opponents, thus threatened, sought/seeks to achieve (in the Vietnamese, the Greater Middle East, and in other cases ad infinitum) is more nationalist and/or civilizational in nature, to wit: as per the gaining — or the regaining — of independence and freedom. (And, thus, for the “natives,” a much more critical and compelling cause?)
This being the case, then might we agree that:
a. What the U.S./the West sought/seeks to achieve in S. Vietnam then, and in the Greater Middle East, etc., today (greater security and prosperity — by way of the “expansion” of our political, economic, social and value institutions and norms); this, given the costs of same, were/are of relatively less value to the populations of the U.S./the West than, might we agree,
b. What the populations of such nations as Vietnam then, and those of the Greater Middle East now, sought/seek to achieve (to wit: independence and freedom); this being a cause for which these populations were/are clearly prepared to pay a much greater price?
Thus, these such conflicts to be viewed as “asymmetric” — not so much from the “military power” perspective (in which the U.S./the West clearly prevails) — but more from the “political power” point-of-view (where the party seeking freedom and independence from foreign interference/imperial expansion has/can have the clear advantage)?
“Exhaustion,” thus, to be viewed more from this “political power” perspective, outlined above; one which finds that:
a. While the U.S./the West’s market-democracy “expansionist” efforts of the post-Cold War — and especially our populations’ enthusiasm for same — have now been greatly diminished. (As such things as the Brexit, and especially President Trump’s recent election here at home, would seem to confirm?),
b. The Rest of the World’s (led by such entities as Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, AQ, etc., today?) “freedom and independence” agenda — and their populations’ significant approval of same — these would seem to have, of late, been soundly enhanced. (As the rise of both “nationalist” and “civilizational” leaders appears to indicate?)
(If one wakes up one morning and finds that the much of the Rest of the World appears to be against you — this, specifically because of your enormous state and societal “transformation and assimilation” efforts undertaken post-the Old Cold War — then can political and psychological “exhaustion,” in such a circumstance, not be far behind? This, given that such things as “universal western values” [much as was the case with “universal communist values” before them] have failed to materialize/have proven to be fantasy?)
Bottom Line Thought:
As I have noted in my comment below, and given the similarity with the Soviet/the communist “Rest of the World is against you” political and psychological “exhaustion” case, then might the U.S./the West — and given the similar stresses that we and our allies are experiencing now — also have to come to grips with the understanding that we must abandon our outlying state and societies “transformation and assimilation” goals and objectives; sooner rather than later?
This, before the U.S./the West and its alliances — much like those of the similarly “expansionist” Soviets/communists before us — and under similar political and psychological “exhaustion” pressures — likewise devolve/disintegrate/cease to exist?
(Significant internal disagreement, revolt, etc., such as the U.S./the West and its allies are currently experiencing; these confirming, much as they did during the Vietnam War of old, that our militarily weaker — but politically stronger — opponents, and specifically via their combined or separate [but apparently highly successful] political and psychological “exhaustion” strategies, are “winning?”)