Recently, in the comments of one of Doug’s OTB posts, I was challenged, rather rudely, to come up with “a better anti-ISIS policy”. Here are my thoughts in bullet form:
- DAESH is a problem for Iraq. It’s a problem for Syria. It’s a problem for Turkey (even if the Turks don’t realize it), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states.
- Because of overflow and policy decisions, DAESH has become a problem for Europe.
- DAESH is not a problem for the United States.
- Violent radical Islamists (hereafter referred to as “jihadis“), regardless of affiliation, are a problem for the United States.
- Some of the risks posed by jihadis can be mitigated by screening visa applications from MENA more closely and monitoring visa-holders from those areas more closely while they’re here.
- Some of the risks posed by jihadis can be mitigated by considering all imams who receive funding from the citizens of any majority Muslim country other than Muslim countries that are liberal democracies as unregistered foreign agents. Change the FARA accordingly.
- Some of the risks posed by jihadis can be mitigated by reducing our footprint in the Middle East and North Africa.
- The U. S.-born children of Muslim immigrants or Muslim immigrants who came here at a young age appear to present some risk of radicalization. Special steps, including home visits and counseling, should be taken to mitigate that risk.
- We should support the internationally recognized government of Syria rather than its opponents. If we can’t bring ourselves to do that, we should maintain a low profile with respect to Syria.
- Above all, we should stop supplying, financing, or training jihadis regardless of where they are.
The need to appear strong against DAESH is a political problem not a policy problem. I don’t care about political problems.
Those prescriptions are a work in progress. Feel free to contribute your own ideas in the comments. Keep in mind that any proposal involving permanent occupation of the Middle East in force is a waste of keystrokes. We’re not going to do that.
I disagree somewhere around points 3 and 4. I don’t agree with point 3, because I agree with point 4.
4. “Violent radical Islamists (hereafter referred to as “jihadis“), regardless of affiliation, are a problem for the United States.”
4.a. DAESCH, to the extent it can reasonably present itself as the Caliphate, serves as both inspiration and a legal/religious authorization for jihad in the United States.
4.b. It is in the U.S. interest to undermine the credibility of the claim, both to undermine the religious assertion of Allah’s support for the violence, but also the legal authorization required of jihad.
4.c. DAESCH is an insurgency, best dealt with primarily by supporting the relevant states in counterinsurgency.
Well, funding for a DAESH jobs program, high level apologies, OH, WAIT!, I just thought of something that might just work! Lets stop killing off authoritarian leaders in the M.E. like we know what we are doing. When you create a power vacuum but are unwilling to fill it, what do you expect? Saddam would have handled this without all the wringing of hands.
DAESH is composed of the initials of the phrase al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i’raaq wa-ash-shaam, an Arabic phrase meaning “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”. It’s also a pun, meaning, in Arabic either a bigot or trampling. The French use the term. DAESH doesn’t like it.
Getting specific, the relevant states are Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Not to put too fine a point on it but we’re assisting the governments of Iraq and Jordan as much as they’ll allow. That leaves Syria so IMO in practice your 4c translates into my second-to-last bullet item.
Otherwise I think that if we can convince our notional allies of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop helping DAESH, it will self-discredit.
The point I was trying to make was that siding with JaN against DAESH is delusional. What’s in a name?
Gray Shambler:
The only authoritarian leader of consequence still holding on in the Middle East is Assad. Other than Erdogan and Khameini, of course, but they’re not Arabs so they don’t count.
Points 5, 6, & 8 are non-starters, unless, perhaps, Trump is elected. Obama accelerated Bush’s stupid policy of bringing in Muslim immigrants and refugees, and Hillary has promised to accelerate efforts even more, because American girls and women having their genitals mutilated and competing in the Olympics in hijabs is PROGRESS.
The vetting process has worked pretty well, but we need to stop priority being given to people just because they are married. Beyond registering foreign trained and/or supported imams, I think we need more recognition that Saudi Arabia is the source for most of the terrorists afflicting us. Stop the emphasis on Iran, and worry more about the Saudis. Iran is one of those relevant states.
Admit that we don’t know how to nation build in the ME.
Continue research towards energy independence.
Steve
I’d say that the Islamic State is also a problem for Iraq because they still control Iraq’s 2nd largest city and other areas of the country, which means it’s a problem for Iran since Iran has intertwined itself into Iraqi affairs. This is all the more reason why we should have no troops or airpower in the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq.
Similarly, there should be no troops or airpower in Syria and, no, we shouldn’t recognize Assad, who has committed major crimes against humanity.
I don’t have a problem with our supporting and defending our real allies, namely Iraqi Kurdistan and Jordan.
Other than that, Dave, I’m a little surprised at how much we’re in agreement.
Ah, Stonetools, what a piece of work.
A better anti-ISIS policy first depends on defining a realistic and achievable goal – which we currently don’t have.
Agree with most points.
“DAESH is not a problem for the United States.”
I agree but I doubt the public will agree because they have killed some Americans and their brutal tactics repel most Americans.
“support the internationally recognized government of Syria ”
Why support a dictator who is strongly supported only by his small minority sect? Russia and Iran want to prop up the Alawites over the Sunni majority but I don’t see why we should go along. We should stay out and let Syria’s neighbors deal with the mess.
What makes you think that? There was an election with substantial international observation and oversight that certified the election as having been free and fair. Assad won and not just among the Alawites.
Because there’s a “civil war”? There’s a civil war for two reasons:
a. the rebels are jihadis
b. massive foreign support
If the Saudis or U. S. were willing to commit troops, it wouldn’t be thought of as a civil war. It would be what it is: a war of aggression. That’s the nutty thing about it. The same people in the U. S. who supported the wars of aggression in Libya and Iraq support it in Syria and they’re not being called on it.
We’ve been in violation of international agreements to which we are party in aiding the rebels. We should stop and we should encourage the Saudis to stop aiding them in no uncertain terms.
“What makes you think that? ”
1 Because he has Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian military on his side in his country and still only controls half of Syria against a divided opposition.
2 I am no expert on Syria. Joshua Landis is . He describes the Assad regime as Alawite based and unpopular with the Sunnis. He is persuasive to me.
You’re confused. The jihadis don’t have popular support. The Iranians and Russians intervened because the Syrian regime couldn’t put down the foreign-supported jihadis by itself.
The war started in the April 2011 when Assad used the military against civilian protesters. From Wikipedia:
“By Friday 22 April protests occurred in twenty cities. On 25 April, the Syrian Army started a series of large-scale deadly military attacks on towns, using tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to hundreds of civilian deaths.”
He was attacking Syrian civilians in April 2011 when the war started. The foreign supported jihadis came later. The arms and money that the Saudis give some opposition militias receive is less potent than the planes and ground troops Assad gets from Russia and Iran.
Assad is still struggling to maintain power even with Russian and Iran military help because he draws support from 4 million Alawites while his opposition gets support from the over 200 million Arab and Turkish Sunni.
Dave, the 2014 Syrian election was dismissed as illegitimate, and the 2007 referendum was hardly better (link). It’s doubtful that Assad has more than a smattering of Sunni support, and Sunnis comprise three-quarters of the population.
By whom? As I said, it was certified as fair and free by international observers including Jimmy Carter. It could reasonably be claimed that under the circumstances it’s impossible to determine who has popular support but there is very little evidence that the jihadis have any.
Your Joshua Landi said this, which sounds about right.
“Third, the US and Western countries have prioritized their fight against ISIS and extremism over their efforts to arm rebel militias. In both US presidential conventions, not one word about removing Assad from power was heard. The West’s enthusiasm for arming “moderate†militias has cooled because so much of those arms ended up in the hands of Nusra and the Salafists. Obama’s recent efforts to formulate a common strategy with Russia to fight ISIS and Nusra has sent a clear signal to the entire region that stability, not regime-change, are paramount for both. This is good news for Assad and bad for the rebels.”
Steve
Here’s how Freedom House described the 2014 election, Dave:
Syria is not on Jimmy Carter’s list of the 102 elections his group has monitored.
And still no one has produced any evidence that the jihadis in Syria have popular support other than that they’re Sunnis. Are you also claiming that being a Sunni Muslim automatically means you sympathize with Jihadis? In that case what’s the appropriate policy?
Which should be at least enough to suggest that membership in one of the other of these rebels groups is fluid and the distinction insisted on by the Obama Administration between “good” rebels and “bad” rebels is a stretch.
I didn’t make any contention that the Islamic State has great popular support. I’m sure they’re as popular as the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is not much. It’s still not an argument in favor of recognizing Assad–a war criminal with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands–as the legitimate leader of the country. Like what Lindsay said about Trump and Cruz, it’s like choosing between death by gunshot or death by poison. Maybe the better choice is neither.
I can accept not supporting anybody there. That would be a change from present policy. Right now we’re supporting jihadis although, as suggested above, the administration is finding imaginary distinctions.
We should also be putting pressures on our notional allies to stop supporting the jihadis.
BTW, we recognize the present government of Syria as the country’s legitimate government. Withdrawing recognition would also be a change in policy.
I’m sure we do recognize the current Syrian government as legitimate, yet Obama’s stated policy is “Assad must go” and I haven’t heard him take that back. I’m pretty sure we can do two things at once, such as recognize the current government and withhold support of its war criminal president.
A distinction without a difference. Any member of the Alawite regime would have done exactly what Assad has done.
My point in all of this is that the lesson of the last dozen or so years should have been that in many countries there is not a choice between a terrible, evil, vile regime and good, liberal democratic one. There’s a choice between the terrible, evil, vile regime that presently runs the country and another terrible, evil, vile regime. If we’re going to support anybody it shouldn’t be terrible, evil, vile regimes that will encourage people to hurt us.
Rather clearly we have not learned that lesson.
It is speculative that any other Alawite would do what Assad has done and, quite frankly, I won’t hang my hat on speculation as a reason for supporting “terrible, evil, vile”
Here’s a quote from the authority you cited:
I can produce any number of supporting remarks from the same source. Thinking that Assad personally is the problem is a misconception—a misconception fostered by the Obama Administration. In that particular interview Dr. Landis goes on to say that regime change would bring about the collapse of the state in Syria.
History tells the Alawites that there is, literally, no future for them if they lose control of the reins of the state. Consequently, there are no lengths to which they will not go to retain control of those reins.
All of that means that stability should be our objective rather than regime change and, sadly, in Syria the path to stability runs through Assad.