The View From Olympus: Another Strategic Failure by William S. Lind, traditionalRIGHT
On Wednesday, President Obama outlined his strategy for dealing with ISIS. It is a strategy set up for failure, because the means are insufficient to the desired ends.
President Obama has set the goal as destroying ISIS. The phrase he used in his speech to the nation was “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Secretary of State John Kerry had already announced this objective…
Those are maximalist objectives. But the means President Obama announced are not sufficient to attain them, absent a great deal of good fortune. This is not because the president is “weak.” It is because the U.S. military is a one-trick pony. That one trick is to bomb…
Comments
Edited and added to:
"It is a strategy set up for failure, because the means are insufficient to the desired ends."
AQ, ISIS, et al., seem to be able to tap into some overall desire within the Islamic world for freedom, independence, power and control; items which they see as being denied to them by current political and economic arrangements.
Aggravating this problem is our significant effort to make the Islamic world even more subservient to the West; this, by causing these folks to have to embrace and adopt our way of life, our way of governance and our corresponding values, attitudes and beliefs.
It is within this context, I believe, that AQ, ISIS, etc., find it so easy to gain recruits -- and from all over the world.
So, in effect, our President(s)' job, if he/they are going to "destroy" ISIS, AQ, etc., (and, indeed, all the "new kids on the block" that come after them) is to somehow:
a. Eliminate this desire within the Islamic World for freedom, independence, power and control. And
b. Cause these folks, instead, to wish to become better-assimilated into the more-modern (and essentially more-western) world.
These are, in effect, the "ends" which our President(s) pursue.
Understanding this, now let us ask ourselves whether the "means" being considered -- for example, "boots, boots, boots," drones, air power or any combination of the above -- are sufficient; so as to allow that our President(s) might be able to achieve their desired ends (see items "a" and "b" above)?
Thus, the question might be, not how to destroy ISIS et al., but, rather, how to destroy that which causes actors such as ISIS to, unendingly it would seem, be replaced/reborn.
Otherwise, it appears that we will just have to keep doing this again and again and again. (With no rest for the weary American soldier, sailor, airman and marine; no rest for the weary American pocketbook and no rest for the weary American public; etc.)
Thus, if nothing changes for both sides, a war of attrition, a "long-war" and an "era of persistent conflict" indeed.
(Darn: Don't I sound just like COL Jones here!)
Similar position to the recent "No" vote in the house which doesn't trust the ground forces in Iraq or Syria to meet Boyd's physical bar for success.
It also predicts adverse moral effects due to a David and Goliath campaign brought about by air power alone and/or the questionable motives of the forces on the ground. It does not, however, fall into the moral trap of supporting Assad or Hezbollah on the ground in Syria.
But there are two points made that are disputable. The first is that IS represents the traditional and 'pure' Islam. The second is that the Syrian opposition are '12 guys in a motel outside the country.' The consequences of these points, should they be well off base,may entirely reshape both the moral and physical bars to success.