|
Obama Shares ISIS Strategy at NATO Summit
by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700
Copyright
September 5, 2014
All Rights Reserved.
Promising to fight
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, 52-year-old Barack Obama committed the U.S. to
a new strategy of “degrading and destroying” the world’s most dangerous terror
group. Already seizing 30% of Iraq and Syria, Obama didn’t say when he would start bombing safe
havens in Syria, something he started Aug. 7 in Iraq. Obama’s Syria policy reveals gaping
holes where, on the one hand, he back regime change against Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad, while, on the other hand, he now backs destroying the one group
that has the best shot of pulling it off.
Obama promised to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS,” something he was
reluctant to do before the Aug. 19 beheading of 40-year-old U.S. photojournalist
James Foley. When ISIS countered
beheading 31-year-old Time Magazine journalist Stephen Sotloff Sept. 2, Obama’s
new policy was already in place.
Where Obama’s ISIS policy shows holes is destroying the terror group most
likely to topple al-Assad. Refusing
to revise his Syrian policy to include allowing al-Assad to stay in power, Obama
reveals why the U.S. has trouble intervening in Syria. Before the White House takes the
battle to ISIS in Syria, it needs to rethink the hypocritical policy against
al-Assad. Whether the U.S. or its allies seek regime change in Damascus, it’s far better to see
ISIS defeated than al-Assad evicted from Damacus. If going after ISIS strengthens
al-Assad, then Obama must accept the consequences. Russian President Vladimir Putin
opposed ousting al-Assad because he saw the alternative as far worse. When U.S. forces toppled Saddam
Hussein April 10, 2003, it sent Iraq spiraling into civil war. Ridding Damascus of al-Assad would
create another terrorist power vacuum.
Before Obama goes any further in his ISIS “strategy,” he must resolve the
issue of Damacus regime change.
Suggesting that he can partner in Syria with other Sunni or Shiite insurgent
groups without having an impact on al-Assad is unrealistic. Getting off the fence in Syria
requires the White House to have single-minded focus of disrupting, dispersing
and degrading ISIS, whether or not it strengthens al-Assad. If the Iraq War taught the U.S.
anything, it’s that authoritarian regimes cannot be democratized. Imposing free elections too soon
opens up the floodgates of sectarian war in populations with long histories of
ethnic hatred. Without the
authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq quickly descended into civil war,
something highly likely in Syria.
When Obama talks of working with U.S.-friendly insurgent groups, he’s not really
sure in whose hands U.S. weapons would fall.
Arming Gen. Salim Idris Free Syrian Army got the U.S. into trouble when
Idris lost his weapons to ISIS.
When Obama talks of degrading and destroying ISIS without putting
boots-on-the-ground, he not referring to U.S. Special Forces. Iraq already has about 1,000 Special
Forces supervising the assault on ISIS in Northern Iraq. If the U.S. mission is really to
take down ISIS, Obama shouldn’t be ruling in or out any military strategy. Faced with an uphill battle
dislodging ISIS from oil-rich Mosul and other Northern Iraqi cities and towns,
the Pentagon has all it can do to stop ISIS forward advance toward Baghdad. Iraq’s military, commanded by newly
minted Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, has a hobbled security force from
defections and infiltration under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Iraq needs U.S ground forces to
complete its mission of upending ISIS.
Despite objections from Iran, Turkey and Baghdad, the White House moved
forward with arming the Kurds.
Obama wants the Peshmerga to have all the resources needed to battle ISIS in
Iraq and Syria, though it’s doubtful the Kurd’s Peshmerga fighters would venture
outside Kurdistan. Bypassing
Baghdad and arming the Kurds directly essentially recognizes an independent
Kurdistan. While there’s nothing
wrong with coordinating with Iraqis and Syrians, the U.S. must relentless pursue
ISIS command-and-control. As long
as ISIS continues to seize more land, the U.S. can’t reverse a growing ISIS
threat. Obama can’t rule out ground
forces if needed to neutralize ISIS, including violating Iraq and Syria’s
territorial integrity. Syria has
signaled it doesn’t want the U.S. fighting its battle with ISIS in Iraq or
Syria, despite the necessity to contain the problem.
Speaking in Newport, Wales at the end of the NATO summit, Obama tried to
reassure former Soviet states about Russian aggression in Ukraine. When Putin seized Crimea March 1, it turned upside down conventional wisdom of NATO
security. While Ukraine was not
protected by NATO’s mutual defense treaty, former Soviet satellites in the
Baltics and Poland expressed vulnerability to Russian aggression. Agreeing to a new rapid deployment
force in Eastern Europe, 61-year-old Danish NATO Secretary Gen. Fogh Rasmussen
urged all NATO countries to contribute more to their defense budgets. Rasmussen sees Putin as today’s
biggest threat to the post-WW II alliance, requiring more defense spending. While watching closely today’s
ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine, NATO doesn’t put too much stock
in Putin’s seven-point plan after his land-grab in Crimea.
About the Author
|
