I have been slow to post because my mind keeps spinning around trying to grasp how President Obama’s strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS will actually work. The phrase “many moving parts” is often associated with the plan, but what makes me particularly uneasy is the feeling no one knows how these parts will assemble and then reassemble in the months and probably years to come.
One key problem with the grand strategy is that while many nations have pledged support, the degree of support or each remains largely nebulous or not all that much. ISIS looks like it doesn’t have a chance on paper, but their fanatical warriors continue to capture ground in both Syria and Iraq. The generally shared belief is that degrading and destroying ISIS will require “boots on the ground” to go along with air strikes, but other than the Kurds and the Iraqi government, no nation seems willing to provide those boots.
In the case of the Iraqi army, their boots have been largely useless, this despite years of training. Now I hear talk of them needing more training. Maybe, but they most need the will to fight against enemies quite willing to die for their beliefs, while my guess is most of the Iraqi army is largely fighting for a pay check.
So, we’re back to counting on the Kurds for the most part to supply boots that actually want to charge the enemy rather than run away from them. And what I think 0f as a fantasy plan of training carefully vetted folks from the Free Syrian Army required to take a break from the action to get real good at fighting and then be inserted back into, well, who knows what and where by then?
Because we cannot count on the fighting forces of other nations in this fight, there is a call by Senator John McCain and others for more American boots on the ground as forward observers for the air strikes and as special forces, as well as more air strikes and a couple of other steps aimed at weakening Syria’s President Assad so he can’t take advantage of our weakening ISIS in Syria.
McCain argues that we are not doing enough to win right now, which may be true, but what is left unstated is this very important question: What do we do if his more robust plan doesn’t work, either? Do we just pack up and go home? More likely we get more and more deeply involved just as we did in Vietnam. Talk of winning a war implies a willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed.
Senator Bernie Sanders, on the far left on the Democratic spectrum, shares McCain’s belief we should fight ISIS and is open to doing a little more than we are presently in this fight, but he is most concerned about us becoming bogged down in an endless war. He makes the very sensible point: The more we are willing to do, the less the nations in the area feel they have to do?
Where are the troops from Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Turkey? Where are their boots on the ground? Do you realize Saudi Arabia ranks fourth in spending on arms world wide? Behind only the U. S., China and Russia? The Saudis have shown some support for the coalition in air strikes on ISIS and perhaps there has been money promised or more. I don’t know. But I recently saw photos of some of their pilots who are also Saudi princes and their involvement so far seems more likely a family photo shoot than a strong military commitment. They don’t seem to be doing a lot in proportion to the danger ISIS poses to them.
But again as Sander points out, why should Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey do more as long as we seem willing to do more than our share?
P. S. – Each of those three nations has other concerns that often trump our desire for them to do more versus ISIS. In future posts I will expand on their agendas that only partially harmonize with our goal of degrading and destroying ISIS.