The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

Congress should deny Obama’s request for another ISIS war

President Obama’s request to Congress for greater authority in waging war against ISIS is not only vague, but doesn’t list an end date, the cost of future counterinsurgency wars, or how Washington will solve the bloody rivalry between Shia and Sunnis. Thus, because of the potential cost of up to$6 trillion for both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars according to Harvard University (not countingthe over $1 billion in airstrikes against ISIS), in addition to the 6,845 Americans who’ve died in both wars, Congress should deny Obama’s request for “limited ground troops” to be sent back to a quagmire. Like LBJ decades ago, Obama might say “we still seek no wider war” in his speeches, but his actions do all the talking and this president is essentially asking Congress to fund yet another Iraq War.

The map of the Middle East has not changed since 2011 and Syria sill borders Iraq. President Obama is asking Congress to fund a war in two countries riddled with competing factions, terrorist groups, and foreign donors.  From a geopolitical perspective, destroying ISIS must entail ending its presence not only in Iraq, but also in Syria. As stated in The Institute for the Study of War’s A Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State, simply defeating ISIS doesn’t end various other threats in Syria and Iraq:

ISIS must be defeated in Syria, and Assad must be removed from power. But a strategy that delivers Syria into the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra would be disastrous for the U.S. and its regional allies. JN is a loyal al-Qaeda affiliate and would establish an al-Qaeda state…

This atomization of Syrian society gravely compromises the opposition’s ability to defend against ISIS in Aleppo or Idlib provinces, let alone to lead an insurgency against ISIS in Syrian cities under ISIS control, particularly while the opposition is still locked in open war against Assad.

The fall of Mosul on June 10, 2014 led to the rapid redeployment of Iraqi Shi’a militias that had been fighting in support of the Syrian regime back to Iraq. Hezbollah forces remained in Syria, and Assad likely still receives significant support from Iran and Russia.

Therefore, ISIS has consolidated gains in both countries by utilizing its control of Mosul and other Iraqi cities to strengthen its hand in Syria. President Obama’s strategy doesn’t entail the support Syria receives from Iran and Russia, nor does it mention the “Iraqi Shi’a militias” that had been fighting on behalf of Assad. How these factors will negatively impact American ground troops is unknown and the president hasn’t explained to the American people the difference between ISIS and the various other terrorist and rebel groups active in Syria.

While U.S. airstrikes have pounded ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq, even Kurdish fighters have stated that bombing the terrorist group has been an ineffective tactic. As a senior spokesman for Kurdish fighters states in a recent BBC article titled Syrian Kurds say air strikes against Isis are not working, ISIS has adapted to U.S. airstrikes:

He said Isis had adapted its tactics to military strikes from the air. “Each time a jet approaches, they leave their open positions, they scatter and hide. What we really need is ground support. We need heavy weapons and ammunition in order to fend them off and defeat them.”

ISIS has already adapted to our current strategy and assuming we defeat them quickly and Obama’s new war work to perfection, we’ll still have to secure our gains by remaining in Iraq.

ISIS will then adapt once again in the same manner Iraqi and Taliban insurgents had done of recent wars. The U.S. will not only have to dislodge ISIS in Fallujah, Mosul and other cities, but ensure that these cities remain free from the terrorist group. This will entail fighting another counterinsurgency conflict; the type of war that mitigates all our technological and military advantages.  

Obama’s plan might include “limited ground troops” today, but what if Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey advises more ground troops in the future?

As stated by counterinsurgency expert Lt. Col. John Nagel in an interview with NPR’s Rachel Martin, far more Americans will be needed to defeat ISIS for a far greater duration of time than Obama has informed Congress:

MARTIN: A generation?

NAGL: A generation…

MARTIN: How many troops need to go and where do they need to be deployed?

NAGL: So we need about 15,000 American advisers on the ground in Iraq in 12- to 20-man teens.

First, Congress is in no position at the moment to commit “a generation” of Americans to war in Iraq and Syria. We just ended two wars without achieving the overall objectives we set out to accomplish over a decade ago. Second, is Obama alluding to tens of thousands of ground troops, or a “limited” number? Lt. Col. Nagel cites 15,000 American advisors, but also states that, “The threat to the United States is not immediate, but the long-term threat is extremely worrying.” 

If the threat to the U.S. is “not immediate” in the eyes of a counterinsurgency expert, Congress shouldn’t allow the president to wage a second Iraq War since 2003. The basic tenants of any war against a group like ISIS entail holding territory gained from military victories, and this will expose our troops to IEDS, ambushes, and everything else we’ve endured in two prior wars. Congress should say “No” to President Obama.

 

 

THE HILL