Former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker lays out his argument in favor of “defeating IS” and his strategy for doing so. I think he does a pretty fair job of making his case that the “Islamic State” should be confronted:
It is hard to overstate the threat that this organization poses. I call it al Qaeda Version 6.0. The Islamic State is far better organized, equipped and funded than the original. They are more experienced and more numerous. Several thousand carry Western passports, including American ones. All the terrorists have to do is get on a plane and head west. But perhaps the most important asset they possess is territory. For the first time since 9/11, a determined and capable enemy has the space and security to plan complex, longer-range operations. If we don’t think we are on that list, we are deluding ourselves.
but his case that it endangers us and that it should be confronted by us isn’t nearly as strong. HI strategy is:
- Increase the pace of airstrikes.
- Strike IS targets in Syria.
- “…continue an intensive, high-level political effort to help the Iraqis form an inclusive government that will bring Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds into a unified front to confront a common enemy. We will have to ensure that they have the weapons to prosecute a successful campaign. “
and that we should avoid supporting the Iranians or Assad and support “moderate Sunni forces” however they may be identified.
I am left with an enormous number of questions.
- Can ISIS be defeated by U. S. air power alone?
- Who is more threatened by ISIS? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Europe, or the U. S.?
- Who should be most motivated to confront ISIS?
- What actions or ours would encourage and promote those priorities in confrontation and what would discourage them?
- What is the evidence Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds in Iraq will ever unite to oppose ISIS? What should we do in the absence of such unity?
for a start.
… avoid supporting the Iranians or Assad …
From the start, the bombing would have helped Assad, but these military geniuses could not figure this out. If you understood that Assad was/is the way to exterminate ISIS, this is a logical conclusion, but then, you have to accept reality not the fantasy you desire.
Like the others, he is a scared child. ISIS is ten foot tall monsters with superhuman powers, and they have tanks. I guess they are going to put the tanks on their backs and fly them to NYC.
Meanwhile, he does not see Libya, and like a child, it does not scare him.
Unfortunately, the children must break everything before the adults can get back in and fix things. You see children, it is not as easy as it looks. It was not the ICBM’s, the B-52’s, the 101st Airborne, the aircraft carriers, or my beloved Marines that kept the US safe.
It was the things that you did not see, and now many of those things are gone. You might have known what was going on with ISIS, but you f*cking murdered a strategic intelligence asset – Gaddafi.
Now, do any of you idiots understand how things work?
Something else I do not believe is recognized by U. S. pundits is that when ISIS threatens us, we are not the target audience.
TB, my father-in-law was one of those cold warriors doing the stuff no one ever saw. According to his cousin it really chapped his ass that people didn’t appreciate what was done but I never got that sense. After all, it WAS a secret! At least until Tom Clancy and Popular Mechanics started writing about it, lol!
I should state that my FiL never told any of us anything. But we know some of his Navy buddies would talk about how Clancy had nailed it in various novels. They never said what it was, but having read the novels and knowing his service history it was easy enough to guess. I’ll tell his granddaughter about it when she’s old enough to understand.
ice,
I would guess that what the average citizen is told is only the tip of the iceberg as to what what really goes on beneath the surface of military operations.
Beneath the surface? You’re on the right track!
I would love to hear the stories you eventually tell your daughter, ice!
@Icepick
After the Soviet Union collapsed, everybody decided it was pink ponies and lollipops for everybody. We were all going to hold hands and sing Kumba, or we would sell Walkmans for everybody to listen to Kumba. The Left and Right were happy to dismantle the clandestine services to save a buck. It turns out that globalism has a downside as well. Who would have thought? Oh yeah, …
My position is and was: a robust intelligence service with robust oversight, absolutely no in-country activities, and everybody keeps their mouth shut.
Tasty,
I never saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as nothing more than another evolution in the history of the world. Usually, collapses of one so-called enemy only leads to the rise of another.
Intelligence, like you daid, is something that should always be in the mix and constantly updated, as it is the source for patroling and keeping an eye on small problems before they become bigger ones.