I have implicitly been asked a number of my questions in response to my post on our failure to contain DAESH (generally refered to these days by President Obama as ISIL) so I’ll answer them here.
How could you possibly think that we were attempting to contain DAESH in Syria?
I might have received that impression from President Obama:
It’s time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama said Wednesday night in a nationally televised address intended to sell stepped-up military efforts to a war-weary public.
Announcing a broad campaign against the Sunni jihadists who have rampaged from Syria across northern Iraq, Obama announced an escalated U.S. military role as part of a strategy that includes building an international coalition to support Iraqi ground forces and perhaps troops from other allies.
U.S. airstrikes have been hitting the jihadists in Iraq. Those strikes will be expanded to ISIS targets in Syria, Obama said.
“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” he said. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”
How can you deny that our efforts in Iraq are not proceeding extremely well? We haven’t lost a single American soldier. And ISIS hasn’t marched into Baghdad.
We haven’t lost an American soldier yet. Here’s what Pat Lang, who has forgotten more about the Middle East than most of the supporters of our policy there will ever know, has to say about that:
What matters in January, 2015 is the simple truth that Iraq as it was is no more. IS holds the north and west of the country with the exception of what has become a de facto country in the Kurdish “Autonomous” Region. The Shia Arabs hold the south from their part of Baghdad all the way down to Basra. They are likely to retain control of that territory for the simple reason that the Shia Iranians will not let it be taken from them.
In the midst of this new reality, the United States clings to the fantasy of a re-united Iraq. IMO this is a dangerous fantasy, and one which will continue to cost us a great deal of money. More importantly the fantasy has lured us into a position in which we are spreading small groups of our soldiers across parts of Iraq in which Baghdad government control can onlt be described as tenuous. If we continue to do that some of these soldiers, our soldiers, are going to be captured, killed or maimed in circumstances in which we will be powerless to help them.
to which I would add that such success as we’ve achieved requires us to continue to spend a half billion dollars a month on the effort in perpetuity. Just as in law there is a rule against perpetuities so there is in foreign affairs. Nothing continues forever. Our interest in what used to be Iraq will wane. That of the takfiri won’t.
But George Bush screwed the pooch by invading Iraq. Obama is just trying to clean up after him.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq. President Obama is the one who wanted the job of president and part of the job is cleaning up after the messes left by your predecessors. One of my many criticisms of the Bush Administration’s strategic vision was that it was stupid, delusional even. My criticism of the Obama Administration’s strategic vision is that I don’t think it has one. If it has one, please explain it to me and how the tactics that have been adopted implement that vision.
As I pointed out on Outside the Beltway, the map showing ISIS’s gains is highly questionable, given that it was produced by a Syrian opposition group. And the other named entity who made the claim that ISIS is gaining ground is from the Institute for the Study of War, which is headed by Kimberly Kagan, brother of Robert Kagan.
Taking these two groups as objective sources as to what is occurring is ridiculous.
The sad part is that nobody wants intervention with Syria. The actual Syrians who want help are being used by the Kagans and the other dumbfuck policy goons in their fight against Obama. And what is the fight against? Obama’s policies are pretty much what people want–he’s pragmatically trying to preserve the possibility of American Empire gaining some sort of control in the Middle East while at the same time keeping American forces out of the fray. What people seem to hate about Obama (as with virtually everything relating to his presidency) is that he’s doing it without the standard symbolic elements of America that political junkies have needed as their fix.
“As I pointed out on Outside the Beltway, the map showing ISIS’s gains is highly questionable, given that it was produced by a Syrian opposition group.”
The map is accurate but misleading. It based on control at the Syrian sub-district level but much of Syria is unpopulated or very rural. The same is true in Iraq. It’s analogous to maps of the US which show partisanship at the county level – it makes the GoP appear much stronger than it actually is.
Here’s a more precise map which takes population into account. Click the map in that link for an excellent interactive version.
Also, I agree with Pat Lang, but I’ve been saying much the same thing since 2007 – that Iraq would not continue as a whole nation-state and that partition was inevitable. The same is true for Syria. The sooner we embrace reality the better.
Thanks, Andy. That’s very helpful.
However, my point is slightly different and unaffected by the difference of a few hectares one way or another. The objective, as set out by President Obama at the outset of the present campaign, was to degrade and destroy DAESH. That is rather clearly not happening.
The discussion at OTB fully supports what I said at the outset: the objectives set out by the president cannot be accomplished using the tactics the president has authorized and at some point (in this case within months) the president’s supporters would be revising history to articulate the objectives as something that the president’s tactics can accomplish.
I would also point out that what’s going on right now is actually injuring our relationship with the Iraqis, such as it is.
What I’ve been saying is that it was up to the Iraqis. In 2007 every opinion poll indicated that Sunni and Shi’a Arabs both preferred a unified Iraq, a clear indication that the U. S. should not partition the country on its own. I have no idea what opinion in the country is now. I would assume that both Sunni and Shi’a Arabs want to control the whole country which would not seem to be a realistic goal.
One more remark and I’ll get off my soapbox. I don’t reflexively accept or reject the president’s foreign policy actions based on ideology or political gain. The impact of his policies on his approval rating or on domestic politics is of no interest to me. I evaluate them based on national interest, strategic coherence, and morality. I think our policies fail on all three grounds.
“It’s sad to see this kind of superficial commentary from From Dave Schuler……..”
And why I have to muster resolve to take much of what is said there seriously. “….singin songs, and carrying signs, mostly say ‘hooray for our side’……”
Drew,
Finally went to OTB to find the context for that quote – oh boy…
Dave,
I agree – I think this is another case where the rhetoric, for a variety of reasons, cannot match the reality. We are clearly engaged in an economy-of-force operation despite what we are saying.
Also, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the current area of ISIL control corresponds with the Sunni Arab areas east of Aleppo in Syria and pretty much all of Sunni Arab Iraq. ISIL’s ability to take and control other areas is limited.
Andy
Debate makes the world go round. And comments sections by their nature are chock full of those who like to debate or flesh out ideas. But he seems inordinately angry these days and attempting to persuade by pounding his fist on the table and alternating between “you are stupid” and “you are a racist.”