Obama’s Quagmire

America’s campaign against ISIS has already lost its way.


By  <http://www.slate.com/authors.fred_kaplan.html> Fred Kaplan 

 
<mailto:?subject=Check%20out%20this%20piece%20on%20Slate&body=I%20thought%20
you%20might%20like%20this%20article%20on%20Slate:%0AAmerica%E2%80%99s%20Camp
aign%20Against%20ISIS%20Has%20Already%20Lost%20Its%20Way%0Ahttp://www.slate.
com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/10/president_obama_s_campaig
n_against_isis_lacks_a_strategy_the_united_states.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_em_t
op>   



 

Kurdish refugees from Kobani watch as thick smoke covers their city during
fighting between ISIS and Kurdish peshmerga forces on Oct. 26, 2014. 

Photo by Yannis Behrakis/Reuters

America’s war against ISIS is quickly turning into a quagmire.

A few signs of progress have sprung up in recent days. U.S. airstrikes have
slowed down the Islamist group’s onslaught against the Kurdish town of
Kobani in northern Syria. A much-cheered caravan of Kurdish peshmerga
fighters is making its way from Iraq to join the battle.

 <http://www.slate.com/authors.fred_kaplan.html> Fred Kaplan 

Fred Kaplan is the author of
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451642652/?tag=slatmaga-20> The Insurgents: David
Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War and
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470602031/?tag=slatmaga-20> 1959: The Year
Everything Changed.

 But even if the Kurds push ISIS out of Kobani, what does that signify in
the larger struggle? What happens next? And what is the Obama
administration’s desired endgame and its path for getting there? These
questions have no clear answers, and that speaks volume.

When President Obama delivered his televised address
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/09/obama_s
_strategy_for_attacking_isis_it_s_a_good_plan_that_could_easily_fall.html>
on Sept. 10, announcing that he would now pursue ISIS throughout Iraq (not
just where they threatened U.S. diplomats) and even into Syria, he clarified
that the focus would remain on Iraq. To the extent he launched airstrikes in
Syria, they would be clustered along the border, to keep the jihadists from
moving back and forth between the two countries or seeking safe haven. And
at first, the bombs dropped on Syria did fall along the ISIS cross-border
paths.

But by early October, Obama was dropping more bombs on Syria than on Iraq.
What happened? Kobani. ISIS launched an assault against this town on the
Turkish border. Intelligence indicated the town would soon fall. Local Kurds
were running out of ammunition. Turkish President Recep Erdogan lined up
tanks, but refused to roll them forward; he also blocked Turkish Kurds from
crossing the border to help their Syrian brethren. So, to prevent a
humanitarian catastrophe, Obama sent in the drones and the fighter planes.

For a short while, the bombing forced ISIS militias to lay low and fall
back. But then, like most resourceful armies (and it turns out ISIS is
resourceful), they adapted to the patterns of airstrikes and kept fighting.
To bolster their ranks, thousands of jihadists flocked to Kobani from all
over, to help the holy cause and to fight the American devils, even if it
meant dying in the process. (In fact, for some, martyrdom was part of the
appeal.)

Suddenly, the fight for this little-known town took on vast symbolic
significance. And if ISIS was telling the world that Kobani was a decisive
battle along the path to the Islamic State’s victory, then Obama—who’d put
American resources and credibility on the line—had little choice but to
treat it as a decisive battle as well. If ISIS won, the propaganda windfall
would be immense.

So, Obama upped the stakes, dropping not only bombs on ISIS but also weapons
and supplies to the Kurds. (One of the 28 airdrops
<http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123464>  drifted off course
and wound up in the hands of ISIS, but all the others reportedly landed on
target.) This is probably what energized the Iraqi peshmerga to come join
the fight: Their contribution might not be futile, because the United States
was now locked in.

Here we are, back in the Middle East again, facing a bunch of millenarian
savages whose appeal grows as our involvement deepens.

A senior administration official pointed to one more alluring factor: The
dense concentration of ISIS forces in Kobani made for a very high-value
target; a few bombs, well placed, could kill a lot of jihadists.

But body counts, as we learned a long time ago, aren’t a good measure for
which side is winning a war. The argument might carry more weight if ISIS
were on its last lap. But the opposite is true. A couple hundred peshmerga
may be streaming into northern Syria, but so are thousands of jihadists. A
U.N. Security Council report, obtained by Spencer Ackerman
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/foreign-jihadist-iraq-syria-un
precedented-un-isis>  of the Guardian, finds that 15,000 foreign jihadists
have come to join the battle from more than 80 countries, including many
“that have not previously faced challenges relating to al-Qaida,” among them
such unlikely places as the Maldives, Chile, and Norway.

In fact, according to the report, the numbers of foreign jihadists flowing
into the area since 2010 “are now many times the size of the cumulative
numbers of foreign terrorist fighters between 1990 and 2010—and are
growing.”

ISIS cash flows are growing, too. The U.S. Treasury Department estimates
<http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-ransoms-20-million-treasury-says-2014-1
0>  that the group earns $1 million a day from oil sales and, so far this
year, has amassed $20 million in ransom payments.

In short, American airstrikes and a few hundred Kurds on the ground aren’t
going to be enough. Even if ISIS is pushed back from Kobani, so what? On
Oct. 8, when the town seemed about to fall, Secretary of State John Kerry
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-kobani-still-no
-sign-of-turkey-reacting-to-threat-on-its-border-as-john-kerry-says-preventi
ng-the-fall-of-the-town-is-not-a-strategic-objective-9783372.html>  said in
a public forum, “As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is
happening in Kobani, you have to step back and understand the strategic
objective. … Notwithstanding the crisis in Kobani, the original targets of
our efforts have been the command and control centers, the infrastructure.”

Clearly, Kerry hadn’t received the administration’s talking-points memo for
the day, but his comment—though crude and deeply alienating to the
Kurds—wasn’t off the mark by the strict measures of geopolitics.

ISIS is not 10 feet tall, but it looks like a giant because its
opponents—which include every nation in the region—are unable to act in
unity, either because of dysfunction or their own overwhelming conflicts of
interest.

The most promising allies in a fight against the Sunni jihadists of ISIS
would be the Shiite regimes of Iran and Syria. But Obama can’t join forces
with them, at least not openly: First, he’s called for the ouster of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, with good reason, and allying with Iran’s mullahs
wouldn’t go over well politically; second, if he did ally with them, the
region’s anti-ISIS Sunni governments would back away. And Sunnis are vital
to this coalition, in order to discredit the notion that ISIS is a
legitimate Muslim power. As for those Sunni governments, Turkey—which could
be the most potent force against ISIS—doesn’t want to help the Kurds, lest
they push their long-standing desire to secede; the Saudis are providing a
base to train “moderate” Syrian rebels, and the United Arab Emirates is
providing some air power, but otherwise, they don’t have much to give.

And then there is Iraq. The corrupt sectarianism of the previous Shiite
prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is responsible for much of what’s gone
wrong. After U.S. troops left Iraq, he backpedaled on his commitments to
bring Sunnis into the government and replaced senior army officers with
incompetent cronies. So when ISIS rose up, the leaderless army deserted, and
the Sunni tribes either collaborated or stayed passive, preferring to be
ruled, however harshly, by fellow Sunnis than by oppressive Shiites.

The Obama administration pressured Maliki to leave office. His successor,
Haider al-Abadi, is a seemingly more inclusive Shiite. But so far his
actions haven’t matched his words, so Sunnis still see no reason to pledge
allegiance to the new Iraqi government. This was the key premise of
America’s renewed involvement in Iraq—that the central government would
visibly work for the interests of all Iraqis and thus wean moderate Sunnis
away from ISIS—but it hasn’t happened. As a result, the U.S. intervention,
however well-intentioned and circumscribed, rests on shaky ground, at best.

Even on a tactical level, it’s hard to see where the Obama administration is
going with its anti-ISIS venture. Figures released by U.S. Central Command
show that the airstrikes over Syria and Iraq, combined, rarely exceed 25 per
day. That’s not nothing, but it’s close. A joke recently circulating among
Kurds was that they couldn’t tell whether the Americans were not fighting
while pretending to fight—or fighting while pretending not to fight. (That
was a couple weeks ago; the perception has changed since, but it still
colors their historically skeptical outlook of the United States.)

American military power has played an important role elsewhere. Strafings by
Apache helicopters have kept ISIS from taking over the airport on the
outskirts of Baghdad. And American advisers on the ground in Iraq have set
up logistics, intelligence, and command-and-control networks, which have
gone a long way toward stopping ISIS in its tracks. The Iraqi army is still
in woeful straits, but Shiite militias—some of them dressed in army
uniform—have recaptured a few towns.

If the fight were restricted to Iraq, as Obama had initially hoped and
planned for, this might be good enough. But, as he has learned, there is no
defeating—or even degrading—ISIS without lurching into Syria as well.
President Erdogan has told Obama that he won’t send Turkish troops to fight
ISIS unless Obama does more to topple Syrian President Assad. In one sense,
Erdogan has a point; ISIS probably couldn’t have risen without the power
vacuums created by Assad’s deadly suppression of the Sunni uprising within
his own borders. But his demand is probably more an excuse for inaction:
Obama clearly doesn’t want to intervene in the civil war in Syria, and
Erdogan surely knows this.

In his Sept. 10 speech, Obama said that the United States would train
moderate Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad. But this part of his plan seemed
halfhearted. First, he acknowledged that it would take roughly a year.
Second, Gen. Martin Dempsey
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/foreign-jihadist-iraq-syria-un
precedented-un-isis> , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
acknowledged that the forces running the training program haven’t yet vetted
which Syrians will take part. Third, while Obama has focused on bombing ISIS
in northeastern Syria, Assad has stepped up his own airstrikes on other
types of Sunni rebels (some moderate, some not) in northwestern Syria—200
airstrikes
<http://csis.org/publication/imploding-us-strategy-islamic-state-war>
against them on Oct. 20 alone.

Top Comment

Maybe, just maybe, invading Iraq was a mistake in the first place.  More... 

-Penny Century

Join In
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/10/preside
nt_obama_s_campaign_against_isis_lacks_a_strategy_the_united_states.2.html#c
omments>  

So here we are, back in the Middle East again, shoring up a dysfunctional
regime, caught in the middle of a sectarian conflict, saddled with allies
who aren’t doing much and whose interests conflict with ours, roped off from
potential allies who could do much more but whose interests conflict with
ours more deeply, and facing a bunch of millenarian savages whose appeal
grows as our involvement deepens.

Obama knew this would happen. He understood the region’s dynamics. It was
why he resisted intervening in these conflicts from the outset. But he took
one step in, trying to help, carefully limiting his actions, to pre-empt the
proverbial slippery slope; yet here he is, scrambling to climb back up the
hill.

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko"

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to