By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
On Feb. 11, President Obama submitted a formal war authorization to Congress to approve military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The United States has been conducting military action against ISIL along with coalition partners, but now the president is seeking formal authority by Congress to conduct military operations against ISIL.
The president laid out his vision during a nationally televised address by stating that “This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL. It supports the comprehensive strategy that we have been pursuing with our allies and partners: A systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria; Support and training for local forces on the ground, including the moderate Syrian opposition; Preventing ISIL attacks, in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries; Regional and international support for an inclusive Iraqi government that unites the Iraqi people and strengthens Iraqi forces against ISIL; Humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of Iraq and Syria, who are suffering so terribly under ISIL’s reign of horror.”
One aspect of the resolution is that it “Does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.” The resolution the president submitted to Congress repeals the 2002 authorization of force for the invasion of Iraq, and places a limit on this authorization to three years, so the next president must decide whether or not to reauthorize it.
The resolution submitted by the president met with resistance on Capitol Hill with Democrats concerned about the vague language as it relates to the introduction of ground forces. The language in question of the resolution is “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” with many questioning what this really means. Republicans are concerned that this vague language could hamstring the military in conducting their operations.
With all the attention focused on the tactical aspect of conducting military operations against ISIL, missing in the debate from Republicans, Democrats and the president is what is the political strategy the United States is trying to peruse against ISIL?
One has to remember the military axiom articulated by Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz in his famous treatise where he states, “War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.”
The debate has centered on conducting military operations against ISIL, but no one has articulated what the political strategy is.
The United States has the capability to attack ISIL, but other lingering questions remain which have not been discussed.
In President Obama’s address to the nation, he never mentioned what the U.S. strategy is for Syria. Military leaders have stressed that to be effective, a ground force must go after ISIL in Syria, but no one has articulated who that will be.
The Iraqi Army is making strides, but is a long way off in being the viable force need to take the fight to ISIL in Syria, if they would at all. For the strategy to be successful, the U.S. needs the Iraqi government in Baghdad to be more inclusive of all groups in Iraq, especially the Sunni’s who have been marginalized.
The Sunni tribes were instrumental in defeating al-Qaida in Iraq, and then had the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad attack and kill many of these tribal leaders who turned the tide in the Anbar province of Iraq.
These same Sunni tribes do not like the version of Islam which ISIL practices, but will not do anything to partner with the Shiite government in Baghdad, as they remember what happened the last time, and this time there is no American presence to be a bulwark against the Iraqi government.
Kurdish forces in the region have been clamoring for months for the weapons needed to take the fight to ISIL, but presently the U.S. continues to go through the Iraqi government to then ship the weapons to the Kurds, but that has been a bureaucratic nightmare.
Nothing in the president’s address mentions a strategy for dealing with Syria, especially as it deals with President Bashar Hafez al-Assad, who has been left alone to attack the Syrian opposition President Obama wants to train.
Last summer, the president stated that the U.S. will begin to train the Syrian opposition, but to date this, the plan is still in the formulating phase, and its only 5,000 a year. All the while, 20,000 Islamic militants have crossed into Syria from Turkey.
The final aspect is that many Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia, see the real threat not from ISIL, but from Iran. Just last week, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels took over Yemen, forcing the withdrawal of American personnel from the U.S. embassy.
Iran has now extended its arc of influence in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and other areas of the Middle East, and Arab nations are deeply concerned over the U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations, with many feeling that the U.S. will do anything to get a deal, therefore marginalizing them.
One only has to remember what Clausewitz stated, “No one starts a war–or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so–without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it.”
The remaining question: what is our political strategy for the Middle East? Trying not to sound like a broken record in repeating myself I’ll say…I am not sure anyone knows!
Note: The opinions and comments stated in the preceding article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
Read more articles from John at The Ubaldi Reports.
Comments are closed.