Hard-headed, clear, unambiguous language from Angelo
Codevilla’s book “Advice to War Presidents: A Remedial Course in Statecraft", pg
96:
…statecrafts primoidal questions: What exactly are we after? What does it take to persuade whom of what? What means are sufficient to what ends?
So think about the Syria/Iraq conflict, and America’s current
responses to it, in the context of those simple, clear questions:
With the Islamic State what, exactly, is our objective?
To exterminate them entirely? What realistically
would it take to do that, considering how little success we had suppressing insurgencies
in Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade of trying? Once they melt back into the
populations in the cities, how do we identify them to kill them?
To “degrade” them to the point
where they no longer threaten Iraq? What, realistically, would it take to do
that, considering the number of disenchanted Sunni tribes in Iraq who have
joined the Islamic State?
To strengthen local forces enough
that they can defeat the Islamic State? We spent a decade and who knows how
many millions of dollars building up and training the Iraqi army, and they fled
in panic when faced with the Islamic State fighters. The Kurds, with our
support, may fight well enough to preserve their own territory, but they are in
no position to move out and reconquer the rest of Iraq. What other local forces
are there that haven’t already joined the Islamic State?
What would it take to persuade whom of what?
What, realistically, would it take
to persuade all these Islamic State fighters to stop fighting, and to persuade
potential new recruits to not join? Considering that opposing us and recapturing
territory is a religious imperative for them, what possible incentive or threat
could we offer that would deter them? Do we have any means at all at our
disposal to deter them?
What means are sufficient to what ends?
It seems to me perfectly clear what
it would take realistically – a massive US ground force (because no one else in
the Middle East or the European Union is either willing to do it, or militarily
capable of doing it), sweeping through and conquering the whole territory, and
then remaining and administering it as brutally as Saddam Hussain did when he
ruled. Are we willing to do that? Of course
not. Our troops would refuse to be as
brutal as it would take to suppress ISIS and keep them suppressed, and the
American public would refuse to let them be so brutal. Beyond that, there is no
pressing American interest that would justify the cost on dollars, equipment
and lives to conquer and administer a far-away piece of desert.
So in fact we are unwilling to do
what it would take to achieve the ends we want.
So then why are we there at all, wasting American money on a lost cause?
Posts
