Presidential Memorandum: Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
January 28, 2017
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM – 3
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
SUBJECT: Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is not the only threat from radical Islamic terrorism that the United States faces, but it is among the most vicious and aggressive. It is also attempting to create its own state, which ISIS claims as a "caliphate." But there can be no accommodation or negotiation with it. For those reasons I am directing my Administration to develop a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS.
ISIS is responsible for the violent murder of American citizens in the Middle East, including the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Abdul-Rahman Kassig, as well as the death of Kayla Mueller. In addition, ISIS has inspired attacks in the United States, including the December 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California, and the June 2016 attack in Orlando, Florida. ISIS is complicit in a number of terrorist attacks on our allies in which Americans have been wounded or killed, such as the November 2015 attack in Paris, France, the March 2016 attack in Brussels, Belgium, the July 2016 attack in Nice, France, and the December 2016 attack in Berlin, Germany.
ISIS has engaged in a systematic campaign of persecution and extermination in those territories it enters or controls. If ISIS is left in power, the threat that it poses will only grow. We know it has attempted to develop chemical weapons capability. It continues to radicalize our own citizens, and its attacks against our allies and partners continue to mount. The United States must take decisive action to defeat ISIS.
Sec. 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that ISIS be defeated.
Sec. 2. Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned in this memorandum shall be provided through the interagency process established in National Security Presidential Memorandum – 2 of January 28, 2017 (Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council), or any successor.
(i) Development of a new plan to defeat ISIS (the Plan) shall commence immediately.
(ii) Within 30 days, a preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS shall be submitted to the President by the Secretary of Defense.
(iii) The Plan shall include:
(A) a comprehensive strategy and plans for the defeat of ISIS;
(B) recommended changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law regarding the use of force against ISIS;
(C) public diplomacy, information operations, and cyber strategies to isolate and delegitimize ISIS and its radical Islamist ideology;
(D) identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS and policies to empower coalition partners to fight ISIS and its affiliates;
(E) mechanisms to cut off or seize ISIS's financial support, including financial transfers, money laundering, oil revenue, human trafficking, sales of looted art and historical artifacts, and other revenue sources; and
(F) a detailed strategy to robustly fund the Plan.
(a) Participants. The Secretary of Defense shall develop the Plan in collaboration with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(b) Development of the Plan. Consistent with applicable law, the Participants identified in subsection (a) of this section shall compile all information in the possession of the Federal Government relevant to the defeat of ISIS and its affiliates. All executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, promptly comply with any request of the Participants to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to ISIS. The Participants may seek further information relevant to the Plan from any appropriate source.
(c) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register
DONALD J. TRUMP
Comments
(To my offering earlier today, I have now added a link, below, re: Trump and nation-building and, also, a quote of his [Trump's] from this link.)
Regarding COL Maxwell's "defeat" and/or "destruction" questions below -- and the "complex operations" which may (or may not?) be related thereto -- might we use the following to describe these distinctions; herein to define:
"Defeat" as acknowledging that this, or some other enemy, in this exact same vein, and/or as per this exact same or similar cause, is expected to rise again? Whereas,
"Destruction" indicates that these, and similar enemies, have, in fact, seen their final days?
Thus, to liken:
a. The former case (defeat), for example, to the First Iraq War effort; wherein, radical, fundamental and complete state and societal change was not seen as our mission. And, thus, so-called "complex operations" were, in fact, not so complicated/not so complex at all. This, as this such mission was seen simply as military mission and, thus, not one requiring an open-ended and indeed a generational "whole-of-government" (and American home front) commitment. Bottom line here being that, in the First Iraq War, we realized, and accepted, that -- re: this "defeat" mission -- we would likely have to come again, to kick some ass again, and then to immediately come home again. In start contrast, to liken:
b. The latter case (destruction), for example, to the Second (and current) Iraq War effort; wherein, radical, fundamental and complete state and societal change is seen as our underlying mission. And, thus, so-called "complex operations," in fact, become about as complex as they could possibly be. This such mission, as we all know by now, requiring both (a) an open-ended and indeed generation "whole-of-government" effort and, indeed, (b) a similar long-term commitment by the American people. Bottom line re: this "destruction" mission -- and, specifically, re: the state and societal "change" demands thereof -- being that we, in fact, in this country (Iraq), and indeed in this region, would never (or not for a very long time) be "coming home."
Potential Overall Bottom Line:
a. In item "a" above, wherein a concept of "defeat" is discussed, a Clausewitzian long-term "better peace" IS NOT envisioned and, thus, this such "better peace" IS NOT seen as the mission. Such is considered, in fact -- re: the "gains" that might be realized by such an effort -- to cost much more than what such gains could ever be worth. Whereas,
b. In item "b" above, wherein a concept of "destruction" is addressed, a Clausewitzian long-term "better peace" IS envisioned and, thus, IS seen as the mission. Such is considered -- re: the "gains" that might be realized by such an effort -- to be worth (in our case today) the "generational" price that must be paid.
Thoughts? Could this description of the difference -- the distinction -- between "defeat" (and, thus, not so complex operations) and "destruction" (and, thus, operations as complex as they could possibly be) be, in fact, (a) correct and, thus, be (b) what we should understand Trump and his team to mean when they use the term "defeat" -- rather than the term "destruction" (in this case re: ISIS) -- today?
("Nation-building," after all, being seen as something that Trump, et al., do not buy into?
"President-elect Donald Trump made clear throughout the campaign that the days of nation-building were over. 'We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world,' he said in a foreign policy address on April 27."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/21/donald-trump-promise-is…)
Here is what Trump...Bannon...Flynn the so called expert intel officer and Miller do not get.....
Trump's so called "radical Muslim terrorism"...is a true form of ideology...simple as that....based as are all ideologies on a believe system in this case a view of Islam that many...many...many Muslims do not agree themselves with.....JUST as in Christianity we have "radical views and their related some would call sects"....
In order to defeat an ideology it takes literally years...and believe me if our so called unknowledgeable CinC believes he can eradicate an ideology without going to a global world war..he is absolutely and completely crazy....
So instead of a memo...why not follow the advice of the retired former JCoS Casey....with his mission command that really in the end all about "speaking truth to power".....
WHEN will Mattis and Kelly finally stand up and follow their former JCoS and finally truly "speak truth to power"...anything less is cowardly at this time in space....
This Trump war to eradicate something I have heard before....under Hitler against the Jews....and we know how that ended....for an entire nation state and millions of killed...wounded and disappeared....
And I am sorry...we are on that road and many do not see it yet nor understand it....
An old Iraqi lesson learned...one must be able to see and understand...
While everyone is focused on the NSC organization memo I think we all overlooked this new guidance.
I suppose all the military departments are updating their estimates of the situation and executing the military decision making process to comply with this memorandum. I do wonder if (and hope that) someone somewhere is using design to deeply understand the problem of ISIS before we just go and fill in the blanks for Sec 2., para (iii), (A)-(F) below. It is interesting that the word destroy is not used in this memorandum. Recall that President Obama's directive for the strategy and plans was that we would degrade and then destroy ISIL. But like President Obama's plan this memorandum does not describe what defeat looks like. Maybe those who are looking at this through the lens of design will be able to articulate a description of defeat of ISIS.
I also wonder about the planning processes being used by the other non-military agencies that do not conduct the robust planning processes like the military. Although associated with President Clinton so it will be a non-starter for this administration but we sure could use an interagency strategy development and planning process for the interagency that could be developed along the lines of PDD-56 (Management of Complex Contingency Operations) Although that process was for non-military, non-combat contingencies a process like that could be very useful for the NSC and all the cabinet departments. See the unclassified PDD 56 here: https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd56.htm If the NSC is looking for an advisor on this it could not do better than ask Michele Poole for assistance. See her monograph here: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/1506/01Sep_Poole.pdf?sequ…