U.S. Leads Call for Complete Defeat of Islamic State
Cindy Saine & Carol Castiel
Voice of America
In a show of unity against Islamic State terrorism, the U.S. State Department hosted 68 foreign ministers and other leaders from all over the world to discuss their global coalition strategy to defeat the extremist group.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said hard-fought military victories have swung momentum in the coalition's favor, but added that no one can rest while IS remains an active and violent foe.
Tillerson: Degradation Not the Goal, We Must Defeat ISIS
"Degradation of ISIS is not the end goal. We must defeat ISIS," Tillerson said, using the acronym for Islamic State that many diplomats prefer. "I recognize there are many pressing challenges in the Middle East, but defeating ISIS is the United States' number-one goal in the region.
"As we've said before," Tillerson continued, "when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We must continue to keep our focus on the most urgent matter at hand."
Before last year's presidential election, candidate Donald Trump accused President Barack Obama of being weak on terrorism. Obama said Trump's campaign assertions were refuted by the gains U.S. and allied forces were making against Islamic State.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who also addressed the meeting Wednesday in Washington, said the terrorist group has now been "completely decimated" in his country.
U.S. Seeks Allies' Contributions
In his speech Wednesday, Tillerson looked beyond the current battlegrounds, asking other countries to boost their contributions once IS fighters have been expelled from Iraq and Syria:
"We must keep making the investment in liberated areas in Iraq and Syria to help innocent people rebuild and stabilize their communities. Right now, this means continuing to clear explosives, restore water and power, deliver humanitarian and resettlement assistance, and forge partnerships with local leaders who reject extremism."
Tillerson noted that the United States has contributed 75 percent of the military resources toward expelling Islamic State forces from Iraq and Syria. Now, he said, U.S. coalition partners should step forward and pay 75 percent of the estimated $2 billion needed this year for stabilization and reconstruction of those areas.
"The United States will do its part, but the circumstances on the ground require more from all of you," the secretary of state told the assembled foreign ministers. "I ask each country to examine how it can best support these vital stabilization efforts, especially in regard to contribution of military and financial resources."
Tillerson said the stabilization phase would include what he called "interim zones of stability" in Iraq and Syria. The goal, he noted, is to allow refugees to return home safely once IS fighters are no longer a threat.
Call for 'Humanitarian Safe Zones'
The interim zones Tillerson mentioned appear to be different from "safe zones" that the Syrian opposition and some allies have long called for — using American air power to protect Syrian civilians.
Congressman Adam Kinzinger, who served in the U.S. Air Force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, told VOA that safe zones are urgently needed, not only to protect besieged Syrian civilians, but also to combat Islamic State:
"I believe people need to realize that Daesh, ISIS, was created by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad. He created a safe haven for them in the beginning, he's used them as a way to stay in power and, ultimately, his brutal regime is the biggest recruiting tool for Daesh or ISIS that has ever existed, so ... I think what's important is that we start with humanitarian safe zones. I think it's important that we bring our allies in the region together ... and I think we have to be willing to use the stick, the punishment against Bashar al-Assad for violations of any kind of cease-fire."
Echoing his Republican colleague, Congressman Brendan Boyle, a Democrat, told VOA that the fight against Islamic State is also a battle of ideas:
"First, as far as against ISIS, it's far more complex than just a military operation. It's a fight on social media. It's a fight — yes — on the military field. But it's also a fight when it comes to law enforcement. It's a fight that stretches from suburbs of Paris to senior centers in the West, to Starbucks in East Asia. It is a global fight, and I think it's one that's roughly analogous to the Cold War, actually, in terms of an ideology of freedom and modernity, fighting against an ideology that pretty much stands for everything [that is the] opposite of that."
Tillerson said the global coalition must fight IS online just as aggressively as on the ground, since "a digital caliphate" is just as much an enemy as Islamic State's physical headquarters.
Comments
The idea that one can eradicate IS and AQ from this earth is a total farce....
Ideas expressed via an ideology can never be destroyed ...stamped out...burnt to the ground...trampled on ..tank rolled over it and nukes dropped on it etc.....
If that were the case the NVA and VC would have could and should have been defeated by 1975...BUT they were not....
THIS is the single most lessons learned by JSOC and they will tell you in private...we can kill our way through IS and or AQ but in the end they will continue to be on this earth and still push their ideology....
QUOTE
The interim zones Tillerson mentioned appear to be different from "safe zones" that the Syrian opposition and some allies have long called for — using American air power to protect Syrian civilians.
FACT....the USAF has been killing ever increasing Syrian civilians in their so called accurate air strikes ALL the while claiming to "investigate them" but in the end they do nothing....
AND here is the farce.....
QUOTE
Tillerson said the global coalition must fight IS online just as aggressively as on the ground, since "a digital caliphate" is just as much an enemy as Islamic State's physical headquarters.
FACT the US talks a big game on countering online IS/AQ propaganda but years later...not really making a single dent in it...as there is not a true effort behind it other than words that sound nice....
Example..take the use of internet bots and fake news to drive the Russian non linear war against the US....nothing ...nada...nichts...nothing but words...
Bill...again and again I will go back and simply state..a nation state cannot simply kill it's way through an ideology and then suddenly declare "victory over it".
I will go back again state we as a nation state urgently need to learn that our best FP is to simply support whatever majority of a nation state declares they want to do something that is not in what we perceive to be "our interests"....support that nation state in whatever direction they want to go and then stand back and allow it..earning along the way their respect for us remaining neutral.
In some ways the development of the US historically seen is in fact one of small wars...really go back and reread the Max Boot 2002 book called
"The Savage Wars of Peace"....
BUT WAIT...in our Trump stated "I will eradicate IS/AQ from the face of the earth" flies in the face of 3B Muslims...and it just reinforces the IS/AQ narrative that the US is at war with Muslims....
Trump has authorized the loosening of civilians deaths related to bomb strikes and drone strike WHERE we are now seeing the killing of civilians climb at an unacceptable rate....
WE the US are now in the business of killing in ever increasing numbers "civilians who are Sunni and are not associated to either IS or AQ.
WE are now effectively matching the Russians in their killing of civilians......
NOTE
To those who've supported Trump's repeated calls to loosen the rules of engagement in Iraq and Syria:
This is one reason why we don't .....we are now in the business of killing civilians NOT IS nor AQ....
Warlock:
In the Old Cold War of yesterday, much as in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, the manner in which both great nations and small, and both state and non-state actors were/are aligned -- re: their views of the world -- was not then and is not now from the standpoint of a common ideological.
(In this regard, you will note that even our congressmen above only describe the difference/the distinction between ideologies noted from the standpoint of somewhat broad, and rather vague, "groupings" of same.)
Rather, the manner in which these diverse entities (both great nations and small and both state and non-state actors) -- in the Old Cold War of yesterday much as in the New/Reverse Cold War of today -- were/are aligned is:
a. As per their common desire not be "transformed" more along the alien and profane political, economic, social and value lines of an "expansionist" and "universalist" great power (that of the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War of yesterday and that of the U.S./the West in the New/Reverse Cold War of today) and
b. As per these diverse entities' common desire not to be "incorporated" into these such, respective, "expansionist" and "universalist" great powers sphere of power, influence and control.
Thus, while in the Old Cold War of yesterday, much as in the New/Reverse Cold War of today,
a. The mission of these diverse "resisting unwanted transformation and incorporation" entities was the same (see my "a" and "b" immediately above),
b. The ideologies that these such diverse "resisting unwanted transformation and incorporation" entities applied/apply to this such mission was/is -- logically and strategically -- of a more local and indigenous nature. (And, thus, in the Old Cold War of yesterday, much as in the New/Reverse Cold War of today, these such "opposition" ideologies are likely to be different from one another.)
Bottom Line:
What "unified" both great nations and small, and both state and non-state actors, against the Soviets/the communists in the Old Cold War of yesterday; this is exactly what "unifies" these such diverse entities against the U.S./the West today.
In both cases, this such "unifying" force is a fervent desire -- yesterday as today -- not to be "transformed and incorporated" by these such "expansionist" and "universalist" great powers.
In these such similar "resisting unwanted transformation and incorporation" efforts, yesterday as today, we find these diverse entities (great nations and small; state and non-state actors), both logically and strategically it would seem, employing -- not a non-existent "common ideology" against their such "expansionist"/"universalist" opponents -- but rather employing the more potent and more readily available "local"/"indigenous" ideologies/beliefs instead.
Using an analogy -- especially when acknowledging that it's imprecise (rough) -- to illustrate a point regarding a specific conflict is a long way from embracing your thesis of a new bipolar world formed by a "common cause" (your words, from another article) against the U.S. and the West. Russia, China, Iran, and "certain members of the Islamic world" are not at all aligned in their views of the world, in their ideologies, or in their relationship with the U.S. For that matter, "the West" is not really a unified bloc, either -- the EU is internally and externally fracturing, non-EU elements in Europe are gaining greater influence. "Western" powers in other parts of the world -- the Pacific, the Americas -- are more influenced by regional factors than by some global alliance to promote freedom and modernity.
If your argument is "other countries promote interests in opposition to ours", fine. If it's "there's a unified effort to oppose the U.S.", bollocks.
Should we say that Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R) and Congressman Brendan Boyle (D) are "with me" here; this, given that they appear to have embraced my "New" (if not my "Reverse") Cold War thesis?
BEGIN QUOTE FROM OUR ARTICLE ABOVE
Echoing his Republican colleague, Congressman Brendan Boyle, a Democrat, told VOA that the fight against Islamic State is also a battle of ideas:
"First, as far as against ISIS, it's far more complex than just a military operation. It's a fight on social media. It's a fight — yes — on the military field. But it's also a fight when it comes to law enforcement. It's a fight that stretches from suburbs of Paris to senior centers in the West, to Starbucks in East Asia. It is a global fight, and I think it's one that's roughly analogous to the Cold War, actually, in terms of an ideology of freedom and modernity, fighting against an ideology that pretty much stands for everything [that is the] opposite of that."
END QUOTE
Given Congressman Boyle's "different ideology = Cold War" thoughts above, do we think that we might get Congressman Boyle, and his fellow congressman as well, to acknowledge that this such fight extends -- not only to our "different ideology" non-state actor opponents today (violent or no) -- but also to our "different ideology" state actor opponents as well (both great powers and small)?
This, given that such nations as Russia, China and Iran today, much as appears to be the case with certain members of the Islamic world as well, appear to be:
a. Moving away from (rather than toward) our "freedom and modernity" ideology. And, thus, appear to be:
b. Moving more toward (rather than away from) "ideology(ies) that stands for the opposite of that?"