It is highly likely that anyone reading this blog has already watched President Obama’s press conference last night, read all of the tweeting heads’ takes on the speech, and digested the new policy. Like all topics I try to take on with this blog, there has always been plenty of ink, digital and otherwise, spilled on this topic, even though the speech isn’t even a day old. It’s extraordinarily difficult to say something novel in the foreign policy realm when events change so rapidly and there are so many voices out there. With that caveat noted, here’s the Drugs and Thugs Blog take on the US’s new policy for ISIS.
First off, it appears that although Obama has outlined a new strategy, one that he admitted he didn’t have the other week, this doesn’t appear to be a truly watershed change in policy. It is certainly interesting that the US is now going to begin air strikes in Syria, especially with last year’s non-strike against al-Asad in mind, but Obama made clear that these strikes will be on ISIS-controlled territory only. Any hope that the US would take on al-Asad directly has been dashed. In that sense, then, this is just a marginal expansion of our current policy in Iraq; the US provides the air capabilities, local forces take care of the ground efforts. The new training programs announced by Obama seem to be of the sort that we have undertaken for over a year, which makes their mention in Obama’s speech largely a non-issue. The call for a “broad coalition” to combat ISIS is optimistic, and might lessen the burden that the US has to carry, but it remains to be seen as to which countries will cooperate.
Any increase of American involvement in such a conflict, especially one in which the US is so deeply invested, invariably results in accusations of mission creep. Obama characterized the widening of American efforts basically as a Counterterrorism Plus program, much like our operations in Yemen and Somalia. This is effectively a system in which the US avoids large-scale boots on the ground, but instead provides special operations soldiers and airstrike capability, as a modern day “nukes and spooks” strategy. The worry built in to this strategy is twofold: first, the US might be drawn deeper into the conflict. Second, and contradictorily, airstrikes alone might not be enough to destroy ISIS. If Obama wants to degrade ISIS’s standing, airstrikes and local help might be plenty, but it is hard to believe that it would be enough force to fully destroy ISIS, as Obama’s strategy calls for. Additionally, characterizing this mission as similar to Yemen or Somalia is patently absurd. The US has undertaken more airstrikes in Iraq in the past month than in Yemen since 2002 combined. It is easy to understand Obama’s rhetorical attempt to calm fears of a US return to Iraq, but it is disingenuous to claim that it will be such a low-level involvement against ISIS.
One of the more interesting angles in our new policy against ISIS on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border is the strange partners that we now find ourselves allying with. In fighting against ISIS, we have already tacitly lined up with Iran, who fear any further encroachment by a radical Sunni group in their allied Shia government in Baghdad. Although both the US and Iran have denied cooperation, it is clear that at least strategically, Washington and Tehran’s aims align in this instance. Now that Obama has expanded the mission to Syria, we now are effectively supporting al-Asad’s regime in their civil war. This is all the more interesting when noting that the US came close to launching attacks against al-Asad just a year ago. Finally, our drive in tackling ISIS appears to have lined us up with, unlikely enough, al-Qaeda. Struggling for relevance in the shadow of their former affiliate, al-Qaeda released an announcement last week proclaiming their new branch in India. By working to destroy ISIS, we might have removed al-Qaeda’s biggest challenger for recruits and influence.
All of these concerns being noted, there is one final question that continues to bother me, best written by David Ignatius earlier this week. “Is the United States walking into a trap that has been constructed by the Islamic State — launching attacks that will rally jihadists around the world? From everything the jihadists proclaim in their propaganda, we can sense that they have been dreaming of this showdown.” On this day, 9/11/14, of all days, we must be cautious to the dangers that come when combating radical Islamists. Thirteen years on, I’m not sure that we’ve really developed an effective strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment