Ground Troops Against ISIS: Not Why, But To What End?
Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey opened the door to introducing U.S. ground troops into the campaign against the so-called “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria. Dempsey said, “If…there are threats to the U.S., then of course, I would go back to the president and make the recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.” Today, President Obama is at the Tampa, Florida, headquarters of U.S. Central Command, where he expanded on last week’s speech announcing the escalation of the campaign against ISIS. That’s a good thing because, so far, Obama has done little to explain just what he’s trying to accomplish.
Getty Images
What Dempsey was talking about was operational strategy. President Obama doesn’t seem to have a political strategy at all, and last week’s televised speech did little to change that. We know extremism is a threat, Mr. President; what we want to know is how fighting ISIS contributes to managing that threat.
Dempsey’s comment has been widely reported as if it’s something new. It’s not. Operationally, putting “boots on the ground” in the campaign against ISIS has always been possible — perhaps even inevitable. Any air campaign necessarily involves boots on the ground. Special Operations troops like Army Green Berets or Navy SEALs provide aviators with targeting data.
But “ground troops” usually refers to conventional forces, and that has become a third-rail in political debates over American national security policy — and was, well before the Iraq quagmire. During 1999’s Operation Allied Force, for example, the prospect of American boots on the ground in Kosovo made deployment of Army Apache gunship helicopters all-but impossible for President Bill Clinton, even though using those helicopters to provide close air support for Kosovar Albanian fighters would probably have produced more immediate benefits than did the semi-strategic bombing of Sarajevo, which simply had the effect of killing lots of non-combatants.
The operational question is this: Can air power alone defeat, or materially contribute to the defeat of, ISIS? Air power can defeat insurgents — that is, it can kill them — but it can’t get at the reasons why insurgents succeed, why they find support among the populace. We don’t seem to have a very good sense of what the root causes of the ISIS insurgency are, so it’s not clear what killing ISIS is supposed to achieve.
Shi’a and Sunni resistance to occupation in Iraq? Yeah, we get that. Sunni and Shi’a conflict over control of government and resources? Yeah, we get that.
What is ISIS’s goal other than this “caliphate” shibboleth? We don’t get that — and that’s the problem. That’s why Obama’s foreign policy in the region appears to be foundering — he says we have Arab allies one day; the Arab allies deny being Arab allies the next.
The political question is this: Why are we fighting ISIS? Fighting ISIS for the sake of fighting is fighting; it’s not policy.
What does Obama want the region to look like post-ISIS? Is our national objective the Middle East regional status quo? A return to the territorial status quo in Iraq and Syria? Those are both potential goals, though not necessarily useful ones. Were it not for the instability of that status quo, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in right now.
Dempsey’s comments are a distraction from the debate we should be having. They shouldn’t be the focus of it. Unfortunately, that’s just what’s happening.
On the left, the ISIS challenge has been forced into the “endless war” trope, as we saw in signs brandished by Code Pink protesters during Dempsey’s testimony. Look, just because the Bush administration squandered America’s power by invading Iraq, and just because the Middle East is full of “them” over “there,” doesn’t mean the region is off-limits to the use American military power as a policy option. Reflexive opposition to use of military power on the left is reshaping public opinion: recent Gallup polling shows the GOP has a 23-point lead over the Democratic Party in national security. That weakens Obama’s hand, because it undermines his ability to use Democratic Party allies on the Hill to help build support for his policy.
The most frustrating aspect of President Obama’s foreign policy advocacy has been its piecemeal nature. Though inevitable, boots on the ground against ISIS smacks of “mission creep,” of LBJ’s misbegotten escalation policy in Vietnam. ISIS is like a piñata, and Obama is just swinging away at it. The White House needs to define a goal, explain to the American people why that goal matters, and show how an expanding campaign against ISIS will contributes to achieving it. Sooner rather than later.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Russ Burgos
Interested in foreign affairs, global conflict, and political narratives and discourses
16 responses to Ground Troops Against ISIS: Not Why, But To What End?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
juicyfruityyy September 17th, 2014 at 15:17
Air strikes are there to hopefully, to open the field so the Iraq soldiers, can move in and do their job. No need for us to stay there, endlessly.
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:20
Iraqi soldiers have no more business in invading Syria than we do.
juicyfruityyy September 17th, 2014 at 15:17
Air strikes are there to hopefully, to open the field so the Iraq soldiers, can move in and do their job. No need for us to stay there, endlessly.
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:20
Iraqi soldiers have no more business in invading Syria than we do.
rg9rts September 17th, 2014 at 16:08
The only reason to put boots on the ground is for officers to make quick rank
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:18
– and for a select few to have huge offshore bank accounts. Wars (armed violent conflicts) should be a nations last resort for national defense, not an f’ing optional ‘investment’ portfolio for the select elite @ TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
rg9rts September 17th, 2014 at 16:08
The only reason to put boots on the ground is for officers to make quick rank
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:18
– and for a select few to have huge offshore bank accounts. Wars (armed violent conflicts) should be a nations last resort for national defense, not an f’ing optional ‘investment’ portfolio for the select elite @ TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:12
if it’s fighting to win, the US must go nuclear. If it’s fighting to have on going war profiteering to increase offshore bank accounts for the select few – it’s more boots on the ground. Placing US troops in harms way while TAXING the US people for what the people over there should be standing up for is ust another way for the profiteering warmongers to increase their personal little till – all at US TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If they truly are a ‘threat’ to US, nuke ’em and be done with it. Less time, less money with ZERO (0) US CASUALTIES! – the only problem being that the select few will not be getting any huge TAXPAYER contributions to their offshore bank accounts.
fahvel September 18th, 2014 at 03:42
once again gramps, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Curious though – what right does the usa have to be there?
granpa.usthai September 17th, 2014 at 16:12
if it’s fighting to win, the US must go nuclear. If it’s fighting to have on going war profiteering to increase offshore bank accounts for the select few – it’s more boots on the ground. Placing US troops in harms way while TAXING the US people for what the people over there should be standing up for is ust another way for the profiteering warmongers to increase their personal little till – all at US TAXPAYER EXPENSE. If they truly are a ‘threat’ to US, nuke ’em and be done with it. Less time, less money with ZERO (0) US CASUALTIES! – the only problem being that the select few will not be getting any huge TAXPAYER contributions to their offshore bank accounts.
fahvel September 18th, 2014 at 03:42
once again gramps, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Curious though – what right does the usa have to be there?
fancypants September 17th, 2014 at 19:31
Its funny to hear the threats at the same time its sad to see the murders by ISIL
If war and threats are being made by ISIL its stupid congress is not declaring war. Why is Our gov relying on volunteers for boots on the ground.
fancypants September 17th, 2014 at 19:31
Its funny to hear the threats at the same time its sad to see the murders by ISIL
If war and threats are being made by ISIL its stupid congress is not declaring war. Why is Our gov relying on volunteers for boots on the ground.
fahvel September 18th, 2014 at 03:40
there is nothing the usa can win/victory in the mid east – It will never be resolved by combat and dead children. someone had better consider kindness and respect and maybe, just maybe, getting the hell out of other peoples lives.
fahvel September 18th, 2014 at 03:40
there is nothing the usa can win/victory in the mid east – It will never be resolved by combat and dead children. someone had better consider kindness and respect and maybe, just maybe, getting the hell out of other peoples lives.