Citizen's Empire: Strategic Response to ISIS advance towards Baghdad

Strategic Response to ISIS advance towards Baghdad

Machiavelli once wrote, “Since one must start with the present state of things, one can only work with the material at hand.” The threats confronting the world today cannot be isolated to single regions, cannot be ignored, they demand prompt and decisive action. Using drones and CIA operations is not always adequate to combat the enemies we face and accomplish the need of defeating them definitively. Massive nation building operations are no longer affordable without some degree of empirical activities to underwrite the costs, bringing returns or at least helping offset the costs of investment to the treasury and to help fund benefits for Citizens. In a time when political winds oppose increased boot presence despite the military productivity of such, the air force becomes the dominate tool of preservation with clandestine actions from special forces in the shadows. Robert Kaplan was writing when he proclaimed, “Defeating warriors will depend on our speed of reaction, not international law.” The US military is more capable then any other in the world and by keeping a military presence in the territories we have assisted in liberating, we can prevent those hard fought gains from being overturned by terrorists. The movements of ISIS in Iraq are a case and point, and surely the same would come in Afghanistan by way of the Taliban if a similar head for the exit strategy is implemented. Nigeria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Syria all have situations that can benefit immensely from small scale US military action. While official military doctrine has shifted the United States into an auxiliary role in counter-insurgency, the efficacy of US professionalism will continue to demand its swift action.

The time has come for the Department of Defense to establish a highly effective and responsive command, provided a free hand to halt radical Islamist uprisings before they can gain the momentum of seizing cities. Barack Obama's first instincts on Syria were exactly right, and a tomahawk campaign against Bashar Assad could have easily wiped out ISIS's flank of the then moderate rebels. Unattended to, however, the situation in Syria worsened, and as the conditions became more extreme, extremist ideologies began to prevail and now the country Winston Churchill once claimed to have created with a stroke of his pen to Syria's border, is at risk of being replaced by Sunni Islamic State that is expanding towards Baghdad and promising revenge. Barack Obama, is obviously tired of war fighting, and this is clearly going to be swung in a politically disadvantageous light, but monitoring the situation, its hard to argue that leaving Iraq was the right call, that hesitating to bomb back Assad's forces and strike ferociously at Al-Qaeda and ISIS's segments within the rebels was a wise decision. When our enemy has determined themselves for a war with the most radical and unacceptable ends, then there is no choice but for us to use our weaponry and military to fight back. What is clear, is that the Iraqi security forces are on the run, and that the Sunni's have now pulled together against the Baghdad government. Inaction, could lead to Iranian intervention, early action without leveraged concessions from the Iraqi and Iranian governments is a missed opportunity.

Having read former CIA agent, Robert Baer's “The Devil We Know,” he argues that Iranian domination of the region is inevitable and that the United States should come to terms with Iran to help stabilize the Middle East. I'm wondering what it is he would have to say about the total failure of the Shi'ite lead government in Iraq and the obvious momentum on the part of the Sunnis. The Saudi's have long been partners with the US and nearly always done what the US has asked of them, with an understanding that they have a very different culture than ours that defies our more liberal ideals. The Middle East is a place where the United States has few friends, however, and we've already taken on way too much of the regions heavy lifting, so too see the Sunnis bring a real fight, despite the destabilizing effect, is not necessarily the worst thing, if you consider the July 21^st deadline to extend Iran's commitment to a peaceful nuclear energy program. Robert Baer paints a picture of the Iranians and their Jerusalem force as a savvy clandestine group capable of digging in and defending its positions and gradually extending control until they ultimately control the oil fields of the Arabian Peninsula. If this is so, then to see the Sunnis finally do some of their own fighting, cannot be the worst of situations. It may not be so bad for portions of territory under the Shi'ite domination in Syria and Iraq to be re-acquired by Sunnis. The Middle East is a land of brutal violence, the Shi'ites and Sunnis are equally capable of committing atrocities, and for the matter of this fight, the fact that it is not at US hands is probably the best thing.

We've assumed that economic development, democracy and westernized laws will improve the standards of living in the Middle East, decreasing the allure of jihad and terrorism. This assumption, however, may be very wrong. Their willingness to live backwards and revert to the barbarism of the 7^th century can actually be the surest means of making sure they do not overrun Europe and instead remain a group of impoverished rag tag bandits on pick-up trucks. Of course tighter border controls, restrictions on Middle East visas and a willingness to use decisive force and then deal with domestic outcry, will be an unfortunate cyclical norm. Even so, I'd rather face a few ISIS then a first world military backed by a nation state. If you want to know my opinion, so long as they don't attack the US directly, or anything it has a direct interest in, then to hell with them and if they do, whether embassy or ally, then a barrage of high-tech weapons just short of thermal nuclear warheads is what they should expect. It takes some of the darker side of game theory to understand these matters, but at some point you recognize that the more consistently we unmistakably show resolve to retaliate with deadly and decisive force against militant aggression directed at the US, the quicker we will train the ISIS and other brigades to fight our mutual enemies and stay clear of the United States.

So why intervene, why send our brave pilots to bomb ISIS at this point? Slowing their movements, granted, buys us time, but if you want to know my strategic opinion, what is in America's best interest right now is a combination of pressure and fear placed on the Shi'ite leadership. Right now, I would only use force as they approach oil instillations or other work sights with US corporations operating, as America, my responsibilities stop with US citizenry and interests, in those instances where they are threatened, use overwhelming force decisively. Otherwise, let ISIS stack body bags and throw them over the walls of the Shi'ites citadel's in Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad. I'm certainly not arguing we should help them do this, but with their recent postings making them seem so eager to do so, it may be better for us to let dog eat dog. Let ISIS carry out the necessary evils to be sure that the Shi'ite Iranian and Iraqi leadership clearly and unequivocally surrender their nuclear aspirations, sign immunity agreements for US troops to be stationed in Iraq, and see that the leadership takes to competent technical expertise in coordination with the IMF and World Bank to stage development projects effectively and provide meaningful government services to the populations suffering and turning to violence out of desperation. When the Shi'ite leaders in Syria and Iraq do these things and learn to respect the needs of all portions of the societies they have been charged with governing, America can consider using its airforce and military to take down ISIS and at that point, it most certainly should.

The populations of the Middle East, at large, need to mature beyond neocolonial sentiments, and recognize that while what American can do to help them is limited, it can help these populations to responsibly take control of their nation's fates and put them back on a course towards modernity. I caution my reader and the country I represent, however, that in a top secret study conducted with the most advanced gaming simulations on global conflict, that since the early 90s the US have known that it was not Russian Communism we could not defeat, it was Islamist radicalism, and some of these groups we've labeled terrorists for years, may end up being in the 5% of insurrections that historically used terrorist tactics that eventually go on to achieve their goals, in this case, restoring the caliphate and creating a state governed according to Islamic Law. At this point, America may be wise to avoid immediately making a direct enemy with ISIS.

My recommendation is this,

1. Make it clear that America has never provided direct or deliberately provided indirect aid to ISIS, and that limited support for rebel groups was non-lethal and directed toward moderate groups other than Al-Nursa or ISIS in an effort to prevent the rebellion from being dominated by extremists.

2. Get an immunity and base agreement from the government in Baghdad.

3. Get a long-term nuclear non-proliferation deal from Iran.

4. Then halt the expansion of ISIS by force and negotiate for increased autonomy in the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria in exchange for the building of less extreme Sunni coalition that will cooperate with both Kurds and Shi'ites in Baghdad to address nation wide needs and demands. The expressed willingness of Iran to cooperate in such operations with the United States of America is a welcomed and promising sign.

The appropriate historical figure to consider is the Roman Emperor, Tiberius. As Robert Kaplan writes in “Warrior Politics,” “he built few cities, annexed few territories, and did not cater to popular whims; rather, he strengthened the territories Rome already possessed by adding military bases, and combined diplomacy with the threat of force to preserve a peace that was favorable to Rome. In 2014, we can substitute Rome for Washington and Tiberius for Barack Obama. There are times to blink and act quickly, but there also times where it is better to wait. President, my opinion on this matter is to wait until Al-Malaki in Iraq and Rouhani in Iran give you those concessions the United States and our allies expect.

Livy famously wrote, “Never mind, if they call your caution timidity, your wisdom sloth, your generalship weakness; it is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise.”

Trending Now

United States