By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
With the deadly terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, terrorism is now the top issue among Americans, and Saturday’s Democratic debate gave the candidates ample opportunity to burnish their national security credentials on how they would confront the threat from ISIS.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew heat from her comments that, “We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS which is a danger to us as well as the region, and we finally have a U.N. Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
The idea that the U.S. has a strategy is at odds with many in the national security apparatus of the country, which have been clamoring for one, but still do not know what the political strategy is.
The comment by Clinton drew the ire of many Republican candidates who cautioned on her statement, as even the public is skeptical about the current strategy to defeat ISIS, and to prevent what happened in San Bernardino from happening again.
All three candidates were adamant that the U.S. should not place large amounts of military forces on the ground in the Middle East, but all lacked a detailed strategic focus on how to defeat ISIS.
All three candidates stressed the U.S. must defeat ISIS, and the ground component should be the Arab armies in the region, but never stated how this was to be accomplished.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders stressed his strategy would encompass leveraging the world powers and have the Arab nations leading the effort on the ground.
The question which Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mentioned is that each of the major powers has different strategic goals that don’t align themselves with the United States.
“I think we need to look at what they are trying to accomplish. What their goals are. As I said, most of these countries have another agenda,” the former Defense Secretary said. “The Saudis are mostly worried about Iran. The Turks more about the Kurds, and so on. But they both are united in the fact that Assad has to go before you can make any real progress against ISIS. I think we need to listen to them if we want them to be active and aggressive members of the coalition.”
The other major powers in the region are Russia, whose strategic goal is to support Syria President Bashar Hafez al-Assad and it’s military facilities at Tartus and Latakia; Iran, the other power in the region, has been propping up Assad since the “Arab Spring” began in 2011, with financial and military support to include the utilization of its proxy force Hezbollah.
The idea of Sunni Arab nations providing the ground component is a false premise and is not going to happen. Gates stated this fact, “The reality is, you know, you hear people talk about sending combat formations from Arab nations into Iraq to fight ISIS. That’s just not going to happen.”
The United States has alienated the Sunni Arab nations with the Obama administrations singular approach to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, which our allies view that Tehran is more of the threat then ISIS. These same nations have been calling for the removal of Assad from power since the “Arab Spring” began, and are still reeling from President Obama’s failure to follow up on his “redline” pronouncement with regard to Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
This along with a host of other issues has the Sunni Arab nations distrustful of the U.S., especially of Hillary Clinton, as she was Secretary of State during the president’s first term, and responsible for many of the challenges faced by United States today.
All three candidates failed to address how they would leverage the Iraqi Sunni tribes in the fight against ISIS, much like we did during the surge of forces into Iraq in 2007-08, which coincided with the “Sunni Awaking” which broke the back of al-Qaeda stabilizing Iraq in 2008.
The Sunni tribes in Iraq have been attacked, marginalized, and discarded by the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad, all with the backing and support of Iran.
The Democrats and the Republicans speak in rhetorical campaign political strategy devoid of any real substance and understanding of the region. The next president will have to be fully vetted in what is truly happening on the ground. He will need to have a national security team that knows the region and the strategic nuances; otherwise we are heading to perpetual conflict without fully understanding what we are getting ourselves in to.
The candidates need to remember what Winston Churchill once stated, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.” Maybe it’s time to re-examine the current strategy against ISIS (or lack thereof)?
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.