Retired Generals: US Set For Failure in Iraq and Syria Without Clear Strategy by Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Washington Post
Without a clear strategy from the White House and the return of a robust defense budget, the United States is set for failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, argued former generals James Mattis and John Keane, as well as former admiral William Fallon in congressional testimony Tuesday.
The United States “needs to come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm strategic stance in defense of our values,” Mattis, a former commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He went on to highlight the damage done by widespread budget cuts across the Department of Defense. “No foe in the field can wreck such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today,” Mattis said.
Referring to threats from Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria and al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen under the umbrella term “radical Islam,” Keane lamented what he called a disjointed approach to combating U.S. enemies in the region.
“We are reduced to a very piecemeal effort,” said Keane, referring to the current drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. He also said airstrikes in Iraq and Syria were supporting “unproven” local ground forces.
“This approach almost certainly guarantees we will be incrementally engaged with one radical group after another with no end in sight,” Keane added.
Mattis raised concerns about strategy in Syria, saying U.S. political objectives remains unclear. He also said the time to support moderate rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime as well as the Islamic State had “passed.”
Fallon, also a former CENTCOM commander, pushed for continued engagement in the Middle East as well as a residual force in Afghanistan after 2016. He also emphasized the need to enable local partners in the region, including the new government in Iraq…
Comments
Bill C--here is a great example of the disconnect with the President,the NSC and reality.
1. Congress passes and President signs aid package for the Ukraine includes defensive lethal weapons
2. President states that "large nations should not bully smaller countries" and there is a "cost" to Russia for the Crimea and eastern Ukraine
3. then the following;
Moscow's guiding hand in #Ukraine. 19 weapons systems never previously exported from their country of origin: #Russia http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/tra
#Pentagon offered to supply #Ukraine missile systems.http://bit.ly/16cZ6ac #Ukraina #US|WSJ|http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-weighs-supplying-ukraine-with-missiles-… … pic.twitter.com/eUTte1l9GC
How the arrest of a housewife blew Russia's cover in Ukraine http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-02/a-russian-housewife-ca… …
Putin suggested Merkel "Chechen" option settlement to the crisis in Ukraine http://liveuamap.com/en/2015/3-february-ft-putin-suggested-merkel-chech… …
Then yesterday a spokesperson for the NSC- stated no weapons for the Ukraine.
And all of the above depicts-- a thoroughly coherent and clearly thought out strategy?
Bill C---you concept of Rest vs West is actually very interesting but right now if we take the Ukraine vs Russia history plays a larger role that we often overlook.
Right now I would argue we have slid into the current Central European War just as they did in 1914 with all parties including the US stating often no weapons, no support and we will talk ie diplomacy to solve the problem.
This is where your concept also kicks in---the exact same concept could have been applied to the 1914 war begin---try it.
Historically the Ukraine is in a war v2 against Russia --if one goes back and checks 1919 actually we could stretch it to even say a war v3 if one takes Stalin's starvation war in 1931-33 where and this is the interesting point---all Ukrainians that died from starvation in the Donbas were replaced by ethnic Russians creating the current Putin doctrine of protecting Russians were ever they reside regardless of country.
NOW even this current US NSC and President still does not get it--weapons to the Kurds, bombs on the IS and troops on the ground BUT no weapons to the Ukraine---does that make any sense to anyone?
So one must truly start asking is this NSC and President totally afraid to make decisions that require moral fortitude? Or is the concept of morals now fully dead.
Red line in the sand for Syria, then kick out Assad, then IS is the biggest badist thing to hit the world stage and must be eliminated, to his
super latest statement "large countries should not bully smaller ones".
Never has there been a better tap dance sentence spoken by a US President as it could be interpreted many different ways and yet says nothing.
Through yesterday you had former ambassadors, the SACEUR, and several Generals all stating that since Putin has definitely escalated the war and is in no mood to talk weapons must be sent----and then suddenly silence.
Can you or anyone here at SWJ actually and comfortably state just what this President has for a strategy for ie Russia and or the IS?
There is none and never has been unless winging it is a strategy.
Sometimes leadership requires decisions not ignoring the problem hoping it will go away.
Something this NSC and this President really need to do when they are in a room together--check our own Revolution and then compare it to the exact same developments we are seeing in the Ukraine--strangely similar.
From last night:
Dear Europe: There is an actual war being waged in #Ukraine. If you're lucky it will stay in #Ukraine. Ignoring it will not limit or end it
By the way this NSC and President are not willing it seems to fully admit that the three geo political strategic goals Putin as set have been largely successful due to the lack of action by the NSC and the President and this does not bode well for the coming 10-20 years and for especially the Baltics.
Comes back to a question I raised here months ago--can and will the US pull the Article 5 trigger in NATO if the Baltics are "threatened by local "separatists" complaining about their discrimination of their language and culture or will they simply "talk"?
Based on their current actions or the lack thereof---they will not and the Baltics and Poland have taken deep notice of this.
As Americans now one must ask---what are they willing to defend and not defend and are we back to the days of American "isolationism" hoping a nuclear missile will not recognize the US and simply sail over the US and land in the Pacific.
These are the simple three geo political goals Putin has been all along pursued relentlessly since 2002--it was there for everyone to read--nothing hidden by Putin.
1. completely detach the US from the EU
2. completely discredit NATO and US leadership of NATO to the point that the former East Bloc members of NATO do not believe NATO will support them
3. discredit and control the EU
IMO he is three quarters of the way there with the assistance of this current NSC and this President.
But what do I know-I sit just seven hours by car from Kyiv and the NSC sits in DC.
IMHO the West has now inadvertently crossed the Rubicon as the leader of Russia has been talking to us in a number of different ways expressing what I would call an ethno nationalism or more specifically stated a new form of Russian fascism (Holy War) since approximately 2002.
"Europe's only hope of stopping Putin's Orthodox Jihad is bogging him down in #Ukraine. Kyiv cannot manage that without Western mil aid."
First it was because of a junta supported by the West, then it was Nazi's, then it was Ukrainian fascists, then it was NATO, then it was the US, then it was a NATO Legion AND NOW this latest reason Russia is in the Ukraine:
Putin DNR Zakharchenko - #Ukraine run by 'miserable' Jews https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-run-miserable-jews-rebel-chief-202600… … #Debaltseve #Russia #racism pic.twitter.com/L1hCeUDcxd
There was some political science concepts in the early 80s that stated that in theory fascism could arise out of the then existing Communism based on the heavy police and state security apparatuses then in place.
We are in fact seeing the reinvention of those systems and Russia is taking it a step further---by using their form of "democracy" passing "legal democratic laws" that in fact recreate Stalinism.
All the while we the West never "understood" what he was saying.
We are now in a full blown war and there is no other way to sugar coat it--we the West simply slide into it much as it happened in 1914 with all the Western leaders stating that they wanted to avoid exactly what has been now developing.
By the West dragging their feet in responding to Putin and his threats since 2008 and the Soviets of 1992--- a new civil society arose in the Maidan driven by the massively old style Soviet corruption--the Ukraine has now on their own taken on a nuclear armed aggressor and is regardless of what many assumed would happen are fighting extremely well after a really bad rag tag start.
The new Russian UW strategy has indeed a serious single point of failure---it forget the power of a civil society.
What the West has not realized is that Putin is deadly serious in annexing the Ukraine and then establishing his land corridor via Odessa to the Crimea tying all the Russian Moldavian and Georgian enclaves together.
Diplomacy of the 19/20th century no longer works--only the West has not realized that--Putin has.
Once that is finished he will turn to the Baltics.
Pro-Moscow Groups Launch Websites for ‘Peoples Republics’ in Latvia and Lithuania http://www.eesti.ca/pro-moscow-groups-launch-websites-for-peoples-repub… …
War is what we now have in Central Europe and the sooner the US arms the Ukraine the sooner Putin realizes the costs involved in turning back the historical clock to Stalin. This should have happened eight months ago and then we would not be where we are now.
The sad thing is both side the West and the Rest need each other in this 21st century as globalization effects everyone.
Re: my reply to CB Calif earlier, Outlaw (below) takes me to task for not putting things into proper perspective -- and he is right to do so.
In the West v. the Rest contests of today, in which the West seeks to (1) transform other states and societies more along modern western lines (for example, in the Greater Middle East) and (2) prevent reversals of such gains already made (in places such as Russia); in this context:
a. The Reversal-of-Transformation Problem presented by Russia -- due to its mature nuclear capability and Putin's stated intention to use it -- this represents a far greater problem; much more so than does
b. The Resistance-to-Transformation Problem presented by such Greater Middle East entities as ISIS, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, the Shiites, etc. (Who are not as important and have no such devastating resistance capability.)
So what Outlaw is suggesting -- RE: OUR RELATED PROBLEMS outlined in my first paragraph above -- is that we:
a. Get our heads out of our proverbial anatomy and
b. Intelligently acknowledge and address the more pressing concern (Russia).
Thus, the West v. the Rest -- transformation v. resistance -- BOTTOM LINE:
a. "US Set for Failure in Iraq and Syria Without Clear Strategy." Wrong focus.
b. "US Has Already Failed in Russia." Number One strategic imperative/problem/concern.
Bill C--the Rest threats towards the West are getting more and more serious.
Russian news today "Putin can destroy NATO with one phone call" pic.twitter.com/gWzkm7vEkr
Headline on Russian state TV Vesti: "Putin can destroy NATO with one phone call" (via @navalny) http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2321105# …
Bill C--when we were discussing the concept of West vs Rest and you indicated that I viewed Russia as the greater threat---I did mention Putin's finger on the nuclear trigger, his stated intention to use tactical nukes, his nuclear threats against the US and the new range of Russian nukes.
This from today:
You weren't naive enough to think Putin was totally bluffing about all his nuclear weapon talk....were you?
Putin intends to win. He plans to defeat the West. He may think God tells him to. He will risk everything. So...What will YOU do to win
An interesting question placed to the US NSC and the White House.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-… …
When a major leader is in fact in an "altered state of reality" and has his finger on the nuclear trigger and fully believes he is acting in the name of god then the entire West is in trouble.
Bill C--while we wonder and debate if and or if not "we lost" WE have other serious internal issues other than IS.
BTW based on the links below we seem to have a more serious internal security issue than anything IS is throwing at us lately.
Can anyone at SWJ explain this? We chase those that support with money and or propaganda US citizens supporting IS BUT this is exactly what again?--not the same thing?
1. what are they doing in Moscow
2. who supports them with money
3. who supports them politically
Are these the exact same questions the US government asks when we are dealing with IS? Seems we have a blind eye on the fringe right?
American group pushing Texas independence confirms to @parfitt_tom it met a Donetsk rebel representative in Moscow:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11381821/Rebel-… …
How Putin Is Infiltrating European Politics
http://uk.businessinsider.com/putin-is-infiltrating-europe-2014-12 … pic.twitter.com/z3Msjp7iFq
American anti-Semite & frmr KKK leader David Duke photographed together w/ Aleksandr #Dugin (right)
v @A_SHEKH0VTS0V
pic.twitter.com/eZTZE4Xk9U
Do your suggestions above somehow fit into our overarching/overriding strategic imperative, which suggests that -- whatever we do -- it must contribute to (rather than detract from) the transformation of outlying states and societies more along modern western lines?
Possibly stated another way:
Given that, in the context offered above:
a. The most important enemy is thought to be the one that is most likely to deny us our such political objective. And
b. The lesser enemy is thought to be the one who we believe to be less likely to cause us these such problems.
Then, given this strategic context, might:
a. The ISIS state (due to its much more-anti-western political, economic and social orientation and capability) be considered as the more dangerous enemy? And
b. The Shiites, Iran and Hezbollah be seen as being of a lesser concern?
If these calculations are wrong, of course, and if we believe that -- rather than the Islamic State -- the Shiites, Iran and Hezbollah are the greater concern (re: our strategic imperative noted above), then allying ourselves more with the Islamic State, and against the Shiites, Iran and Hezbollah; this might make sense.
Otherwise, no.
BOTTOM LINE:
If the Islamic State is thought to have a greater capability of thwarting our desires to transform states and societies more along modern western lines (and/or potentially reversing our such gains already made in places like Indonesia, etc.), then it (the Islamic State) must be seen, shall we say, as (1) the greater evil and (2) be attacked accordingly.
(Herein, the Shiites, Iran and Hezbollah being seen as lesser evils; this, because they are thought to be less capable of [1] thwarting our such state and societal transformation goals and/or [2] reversing such gains as these that we have already made throughout the world.)
Ah---the Khomeini "Green Crescent" strategy from 1979 ie Iran controls all Shia areas much like Putin's Doctrine of defending Russians from AFG to Lebanon.
That has been the elephant in the closet since 1979 and yet we hear virtually nothing about it. Nor do we hear that Shiaism is a revolutionary Islam also given to us via Khomeini --part and parcel of the face of the Revolutionary Guards.
Ever wonder why the KSA was building a jihadi wall around Iran?
Abrams tanks driving around with Hezbollah flags--we already have it--US arms going straight to the Shia militias via the Iraqi government--we have it.
Shia militias killing Sunni civilians and claiming they were IS -we have it.
What we do not have is a strategic strategy and that since 2003.
Today, on Fox News General Wesley Clark (ret) made a rather interesting notation. He noted words to the effect that when he asked those in the Middle East Region about what's going on with ISIS, they responded to the effect that these fellows are the only one's willing to fight against the Shiites, Iran, and Hezbollah. And, as he noted, we have a second strategic problem -- this group (ISIS) has essentially been birthed by those whom we note as our Allies in the region -- including Saudi Arabia. He also noted that the Iranian advisers to Maliki were doing everything possible to prevent his agreeing to the preconditions needed to enable American troops to remain in that country.
They wanted the U.S. out so they could move to further Shiite control of Iraq -- and they grossly overestimated their sides capabilities for conducting operations deep in Sunni territory and grossly underestimated the Sunni capability for defeating them.
Americans need to view the defeat of the Iranian Backed Iraqi Shiite Army as a positive event, not a negative one. We need to insure that the costs emanating from that debacle are borne by Iran, not the U.S. In short, we need a new way of thinking about handling and benefiting from conflicts in the Middle East.
We also need a reality check. The Sunni Nations are not going to act in any manner which furthers Iranian / Hezbollah / Shiite control of Arab Lands. Lets be realistic. ISIS simply does not pose a current meaningful level of threat to this nation warranting attacking them in a manner that alienates the Sunni nations and peoples in that region. They would view such attacks against ISIS as the U.S. acting militarily to further the anti-Arab Imperialistic dreams and actions of the Iranians and their allies.
The U.S. needs to proceed in the Middle East guided by a strategic mind set, not a tactical mind set. Our objective should NOT be to defeat ISIS -- at least for the foreseeable future. Instead it should be the following:
1. Keep the Kurdish Areas secure from ISIS or Shiite Control by directly providing arms, ammunition, and training to their forces, and to support them with Air Power as needed to secure their positions and control over the territory they need to economically exploit their oil resources.
2. For the foreseeable future support the Iraqi Shiites with arms, ammunition, training, and Air Support they need to defend their areas against ISIS offensive movements against them -- insuring that they pay for the weapons they purchase. They are oil rich and can afford the costs. We should not, however, provide them any armaments that would allow them to carry out (actually attempt) deep penetration operations into Sunni territory, as they will be defeated in that effort. Our interest is in keeping them fighting at some consistent low level that drains their Iranian Allies by involving them in a protracted war that goes nowhere.
3. The U.S. needs to scale back its attacks against ISIS forces in the Sunni Areas, unless we are interdicting their efforts against the Kurds. The Saudis. Jordanians and others are not interested in having their Sunni cousins in that area brought under control of an Iranian Arab Shiite Kingdom. Facilitating that result by involving this country in another protracted war cannot provide this country with any strategic benefit -- just costs and frustration.
4 The U.S. needs to stop conducting Air Operations against ISIS or other Sunni groups fighting against the Syrian Shiites / Hezbollah / Iranians in Syria -- absent supporting the Kurds in their geographical areas of Syria. Send ISIS a message. probably through Qatar -- stay away from the Kurds, don't conduct operations against any other nation other than Syria or against the Shiites / Hezbollah in Lebanon and we will not interfere with your operations in Syria.
Our objective should be to effectively drag Iran, Hezbollah, and others on that team into a long protracted war that drains and damages them -- and use ISIS to carry out those operations and incur the costs.
The last thing we need to do is follow any advice that the U.S. insert ground forces (combat Units) into that quicksand. Haven't we learned from Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon 1982, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
None of the warring parties in that part of the world presents an existential threat to this country, thus we must act accordingly. We have more important areas of concern on which to spend our tax providing defense dollars, including on programs at home that provide for American employment.
As was recently noted, when your enemies (or at least those who are not one's friends) are killing each other, don't interfere.
Does every strategic approach carry risks, most certainly; but we couldn't perform and demonstrate more strategic incompetence than we have for the last decade plus in the Middle East and for the last five decades overall.