President Obama last week outlined
his plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.” Obama contends ISIL poses a threat to U.S. citizens
and interests in the Middle East. If left unchecked he said the group could pose
a threat outside the region, including the U.S., but ISIL does not yet pose a clear
and present danger. Under the doctrine
of preemption established by President G.W. Bush, and followed by President
Obama, the U.S. will take limited action against ISIL to prevent its further
development as a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East and the U.S.
homeland.
The details of Obama’s plan and
the participation levels of coalition members will be sorted out in the coming
days and weeks. The announced total
complement of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will immediately rise to about 1,500.
No U.S. ground maneuver units (e.g.
combat brigades and divisions) will deploy.
The plan calls for Iraqi forces and Syrian rebels to take the ground
battle to ISIL under an air umbrella provided by the U.S. The ground component requires much greater clarification as it is fraught with
complexity and risk.
The initial debate following Obama’s
speech last week reveals weaknesses in the plan. The debate is necessary and healthy. It is important to define a clear objective
much finer than simply to “degrade” ISIL or the false goal that it can be
destroyed through limited military action. Holding fast to “no boots on
the ground” is setting limits that are wrong and probably not true. U.S. special-forces are probably deployed now
with Iraqi and Kurdish forces to provide intelligence, coordination, and
targeting assistance. If they are not
the mission may be at risk. One hopes that Obama will demonstrate healthy
reluctance to expanded involvement, but also not be paralyzed to the point of
mission failure or unnecessary risk to U.S. forces.
In addition to diminishing ISIL’s
capacity in the short term through military action, Obama should focus
rigorously on developing a long term counter-terrorism strategy that places the
battle of ideas at the forefront. In his
speech he for the first time acknowledged the need to counter a “warped
ideology.” He has refused to acknowledge
ideology as a motivator of Islamic terror groups until now. This position fed his first term tour of the
world to apologize for past U.S. policy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2009, “Let’s put ideology
aside; that is so yesterday.” His
administration’s foreign policy was driven by an assumption clearly stated in
his 2013 foreign policy speech at the National Defense University that “underlying
grievances” feed extremism. The word “grievance”
was also used in describing ISIL’s motivations in his speech last week, but the
door was opened, and correctly so, to attribute ideology as a motivator of
extremists.
Ideology does matter – it is
all that matters in many jihadi groups.
Radical Islamic jihad ideology must be acknowledged
and addressed not on the battlefield by the U.S., but on the streets and in the
schools and mosques of the Muslim world.
The Recent Pew Research report, “Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the
Rise in Middle East” indicates rising concern in Muslim countries about extremism,
a major shift and growing trend. Now may
be the ideal time for a rigorous effort by the U.S. to convince the only people
capable of “ultimately destroying” the menace of ISIL and its ilk to take up
the battle of ideas – Muslims.
The U.S. government’s dominant historical foreign policy goal has been stability. At the same time, the American people like clear cut solutions that settle issues definitively. Neither the U.S. government nor the desires of its people are going to be satisfied in the Middle East. The region is torn by ethnic and sectarian strife, and cultures that place revenge above most other values. The U.S. government cannot “fix” the region. Shifting conflicts and crisis will have to be managed over time and the American people must begin to accept uncertainty and changing dynamics in the region. U.S. policy must develop to stay out of religious and ethnic conflicts and civil wars in the Middle East while asserting influence and power when and where necessary to minimize negative effects on U.S. interests.
ReplyDeleteThe following resource links are provided for those who wish to learn more:
“Concerns about Islamic Extremism on the Rise in Middle East - Negative Opinions of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah Widespread,” Pew Research Center http://tinyurl.com/pczq2kb
Remarks by the President at the National Defense University http://tinyurl.com/pkdx6bl
This post appeared in the Cape Cod Times on October 3, 2014 and is available at the following link: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20141003/OPINION0310/410010310/-1/OPINION
ReplyDelete