An air war against ISIS won’t work

63 thoughts on “An air war against ISIS won’t work”

1. Until we’re able to openly address the underlying poison, what Ayaan Hrsi Ali calls the “Preacher Teacher”, this will never end.

   1. This.

      All we will be doing in the meantime is pretending we can contain them and in the course of that many will die. We must somehow pursuade the Muslim world to stand up to these jihadists – after all their primary victims are other Muslims.

      The problem, of course, is that their very religion calls for jihad. Nevertheless this Hydra can only be killed if the people who follow the religion it grew from change.

      I am doubtful this will happen in the near term, but am hopeful that eventually Islam will fade in importance to Muslims as most other religions today have faded. Some active, participatory rejection of Islamist rhetoric and thought by Muslims themselves is the only way I can see for this to happen.

2. Reasonable fear and concerned doubts, those! So, what additionally (if anything) or instead (if anything) should we the USA (and/or any other nations) do about ISIS, if not at least pound and punish (attempt to destroy or at least substantially discourage) from the air?

   1. I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe bombing won’t work to push them back into their caves. Perhaps it will make it hard for them to push any further.

3. why Obama is ignorant of the whack-a-mole concept is a mystery. Seems like he is just treading water til he is finished with this job that apparently bores him. His heart isn’t in it – he isn’t supposed to be a stupid man.

   1. He actually used that analogy recently so I am quite sure he is not ignorant of it. However, I think you are right – he is out of ideas, has very few options and can see 2016 just around the corner. It seems he may be just kicking this can down the road.

   2. He doubtless has some interest in making sure that Democrats aren’t seen as weak prior to the upcoming Congressional elections.

      1. IMO the impending mid-terms are indeed a mitigating factor. At a minimum, concern for the election will dictate they manner in which these forthcoming events are spun.

   3. ” . . . finished with this job that apparently bores him.”

      What evidence and behavior from him would you need to (be able to directly and frequently) observe to conclude that he wasn’t bored? Perhaps that required by NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who won’t be satisfied until he becomes a kindred spirit drama queen, perhaps of the likes of trigger-happy R’s like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, those founts of ultimate wisdom, geopolitical and otherwise?

      “Everybody rides the bucking horse better than the guy riding it.”

      – an Old Marine veteran of Guadalcanal

      “Being President is like being a mule out in a hailstorm; you just have to stand there and take it.”

      – Lyndon Johnson

4. Well, he could invite them over for beer & pulled pork on the South Lawn.

   Oh, wait – that won’t work – they’d expose themselves as not the True Muslims that all the apologists know they aren’t.

5. Even other Sunnis may not be ideologically pure enough for ISIS.

   1. But of course, as Karen Armstrong and others have explained, this isn’t about “religion”, that’s the last thing it is about. So Jerry shouldn’t be surprised: “Frankly, I’m surprised, for those are Sunni Muslim nations attacking other Sunnis.” 8^)

      Nothing to see here, folks, just a bit of a cultural/postcolonial power/wealth redistribution kerfluffle with a tab too much collateral damage….

      1. You’re only one word away from post-modernist buzzword bingo. I suggest working “hegemony” in there.

         1. Non-flip answer: Ayaan Hirsi Ali addressed these very items in her recent Yale talk. Illuminating.

6. Offer international immunity to the Sinaloa Cartel and offer them a fleet of Patria AMVs for ground support.

   Ironically, only Bill O’Reilly knows what happened to Patton (cough).

7. If GBJames earlier comment regarding the “preacher, teacher” problem is true, and IMO, it is, then perhaps the best way to alleviate the suffering that ISIS is causing is not through what is almost universally described as a likely fruitless bombing campaign but to instead focus that effort and those resources on the refugee crisis. The latest report I read put the number of refugees at 4 million. That’s more people than the population of the state of Mississippi. The Turkish are being inundated with refugees as are many of the other states bordering Syria and ISIS controlled territory. Surely this is a humanitarian crisis worth addressing and it may represent the most “bang of the buck” in terms of reducing the harm that ISIS is causing.

   It’s harder to demonize people if they’ve saved your life. Nothing is simple in this region and I don’t have any delusions that humanitarian relief will magically win the hearts and minds of the whole of the islamic world, but considering the likely futility of any military action the public would be willing to stomach, it’s worth a shot.

   This leaves people in ISIS controlled territory at the hands of vicious thugs. ISIS can’t be dictated to until there are infantry in those cities and that scenario would likely be a disaster for all parties concerned.

   1. Much as I’d like to agree with you here, I can’t quite.

      We should do a lot of humanitarian assistance because that’s the right thing to do in any case. But I don’t think doing so will contribute in the least to defanging Islam. The only way I think that can happen is some combination of serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to cease exporting Wahabbiasm combined with major sustained programs of education, especially of women. Neither of those are easy.

      I’m not convinced that doing nothing vis-a-vis ISIS is a realistic option.

8. It should also be mentioned, for completeness, that work is also under way to disrupt the network of supplies, recruits, and $ going to ISIL, but that that will take time and I bet it will always be porous.
   I fully agree that without effective ground forces in both Iraq and Syria, ISIL will not be fully dislodged. Revolutionaries are like honey badgers. They just don’t care.
   Even with effective boots on the ground, ISIL can just disperse and mount a guerilla campaign. So I see no way to win this in even the best of circumstances.

   Still, this is the situation that we have and I cannot think of anything better to do. Obamas strategy will not work, but he has to try something.

   1. Yes, and slowing ISIS’ momentum (as appears to be the case based on the NY Times article and maps) does at least give assets (human, equipment, supplies, etc) time to escape or redeploy, and can also improve the tactical situation for the defending ground troops.

      1. Many say that we only make things worse. I agree we have a track record that supports that point, but considering how horrible ISIL is, I do as yet see how we can make this one worse.

9. It’s conventional wisdom that air power can’t win a war, but Bill Clinton used it in Serbia.

   I think the deep question is whether we have the ability to locate valuable targets. With Arab nations cooperating, we have a shot at useful intelligence.

   I don’t think anyone knows how it will turn out, but the published time frame is decades, which is sensible.

   To “win” will require depriving ISIS of weapons and money. This hasn’t been done yet, but given a decade or two, it seems possible. Assuming that nation states are united on this.

   1. This kind of problem is huge. To win significantly is nearly impossible, and I’m not sure it has ever been achieved. Of course it does depend on what is meant by “win.”

      The hardest thing to achieve, and what I think is a necessary thing to accomplish in order to win significantly, is to arrange for the local population to be able to protect themselves from ISIS ever regaining significant ability to affect them again. But nation building, which is what it takes in a nutshell, is something we have repeatedly demonstrated we really suck at. Where do you start to create a stable state that can routinely provide a similar level of inherent security more typical of a western european country? Out of current day Iraq or Syria? Education? That would take a generation at best.

      Perhaps if a large portion of the rest of the world worked together on such problems in, relatively at least, good faith. That seems as much a pipe dream as fixing the problem.

   2. The air campaign in Serbia was unusual, but what made that work was that we were fighting a stable government that controlled its army, and we did not topple that government. They could surrender, and redirect their army to stand down. A terrorist organization does not have that kind of top-down structure.

      1. Terror organization? I thought they were a Caliphate?

         I think it is a mistake to think that terrorist organizations don’t have the ability to direct their troops.

      2. They do not have a top down structure, but they depend on the consent of the population.

         If they become isolated, like gangsters, they can survive indefinitely, but not be as much trouble as they are now. Gangsters survive like parasites because they do not threaten the survival of their hosts.

         From my rather optimistic point of view, it has been something of a master stroke to maneuver these people into a position where they pose a threat to all existing governments. I can’t remember a time in my life when all the governments of the world agreed on anything.

         It’s a bit like a honey pot that draws crazies from all over the world into a killing field. Almost as if it were planned.

10. I have the same dread — similar, maybe worse than, the dread I felt in the spring of ’03.

11. Obama’s strategy actually has more chance of working than any other. However, he’s playing a long game and everyone is, naturally, looking for a quick fix. He has to somehow get the countries in the region to take control of the situation. This, imo, is why he’s so insistent about no combat troops. As soon as the US does that, any solution loses political authority because of the way they’re viewed in the region. Iraq and the Kurds recognise this, and are on the record stating they don’t want US troops. The US and her western allies in this need to be seen as support partners for the regional members of the coalition. ISIL are referring to the members of Obama’s coalition as crusaders in an obvious attempt at creating an emotional response within islam. If the fight against ISIL is seen in the region as being led by countries in the region, there is a far better chance of long-term and long lasting success. For political and religious reasons, they are reluctant to commit, but if Obama insists often enough he won’t send in combat troops, they’ll realize he means it and finally commit.

    Jordan has outstanding intelligence and special forces troops, trained by the US and UK. Turkey’s army is huge – within NATO only the US’s is bigger. There’s no shortage of money in the region. The Peshmerga (Kurdish army) are skilled and disciplined. The Iraqi army has had poor leadership recently because of former PM al-Maliki, but he’s gone and they should be able to improve again fairly quickly. Obviously the US has an amazing military, but they’re not the only ones capable of doing the job. It may take a bit longer without America taking control, but at least the solution will be owned locally.

    1. You realize that, so far, Turkey looks like they want to be neutral. They won’t even allow the US to use our bases there to mount attacks and they’ve been stopping Kurds from crossing the border into Syria to fight ISIS. In addition, they treat ISIS wounded. (I saw a comment yesterday from a nurse who was furious about having to treat terrorists.) The Kurds seem to be highly motivated. Of course, Turkey has it’s own problems with some of the radical Kurds.

       1. Therein is one of the factors for why Turkey is minimizing its involvement since they would be fighting alongside separatist Turks whom they consider to be terrorists.

          1. Turkey, until yesterday, had 47 consular officials who had been serving in Mosul, as hostages of ISIL. They have now been freed, so there’s hope Turkey will now take a greater role, and they’ve indicated they will. However, those historic difficulties between Turkey and the Kurds are a complicating factor, and a great deal of diplomacy will be required there.

       2. If, as is becoming more likely ( Parliament is being recalled – Cameron is playing this one by the book) that the UK will join in the bombing campaign then the UK could make Akrotiri available which is in the perfect spot …..

    2. At times I choose to hope that the long game here later transforms how we deal with eruptions in Mid-east countries. If we don’t lead with boots on the ground, then maybe the regional powers will be forced to commit their own ground forces to get anything done. I hope that is what it comes to. Then, in future conflicts, they might be more willing to police their own backyards rather than having us send forces half way around the world all the time.

       1. This is, imo, what needs to happen. If it can be started now, against ISIL, it will be a huge breakthrough in diplomacy in the region.

       2. At the same time you have to tackle the other half of the problem back home. The political culture that sees the use of military force for things like looking like badasses, gaining access to wealth / resources, and gaining power, all in the name of national security. In other words, pretty much the same way those with power have always acted in the past.

          We have to change that. We have to change what “national security” means and how we determine what to do to achieve it. Evidenced based planning instead of ideological / tradition / self-serving based planning.

          1. As long as there are only politicians running for office, I fear this will never happen.

12. I’m afraid this will be just like 1993 in Sudan and Afghanistan: Making the rubble jump and not much else.

    And it may well be taken in exactly the same way those air strikes were taken, pre-9/11.

    That said, I’d be happy if they wipe these guys out.

13. The air strikes in Iraq, until a day or so ago, have been small, purely defensive attacks–often humanitarian in nature. They saved lives, allowed the Kurds to regroup, and took a dam out of ISIS control. We’ve given the Kurds some new weapons and are training them in their use. The Kurds are eager to fight ISIS.

    It’s obvious this won’t defeat ISIS and that a willing Iraqi army is needed and some serious offensive US strikes are needed.

    Obama has said plenty of cringe worthy things about this and I wonder what’s going on in his head, but he’s all we’ve got. Yesterday he said something about “not going it alone.” Well, if defeating ISIS is needed for US security, then we must be willing to go it alone; if not needed, then we shouldn’t be in the fight at all–like our approach to Ukraine where, I believe, we have no US security interest.

    1. The world is a pretty small place these days. Any major issues anywhere on the planet are a security interest for everyone on the planet. The events in Ukraine are certainly of security interest to the US. Likewise ISIS.

       The problem of addressing those security interest concerns is, what actions are possible to take, what would the outcomes likely be, are any of those outcomes desirable. We, the US, usually screw the pooch on all of those. What we are good at is achieving military goals, like destroying the designated opposition. What we suck at, and by we I mean those that call the shots for us, is deciding when, where and how to use that tool.

       1. And nation building. We suck at nation building in unstable regions using politically corrupt leaders in regions that have a half dozen ethnic and religious groups that want to kill each other. For some reason we suck at nation building in that situation.

14. A friend of mine pointed to the huge demographic and (hence) resource problem in Syria, for example. That’s also piece of the puzzle.

15. Another thing to remember is that, as I recall, our NATO allies have said they won’t do air strikes into Syria.

    1. Air strikes into Syria, although only against ISIL have now started. Assad has been letting ISIL have free reign as they’ve been taking the attention of the Free Syrian Army away from him. Assuming ISIL is defeated militarily, Assad will be the next problem. It was air strikes against the Assad regime that were controversial – Obama’s red line moment.

    2. On my drive home, the CBC quoted the leaders in Syria as saying that they were okay with the air strikes because they have been fighting extremists for years.

       The US administration was quoted as saying that through diplomats, they told the Syrian administration about the strikes in advance.

       1. There is no doubt Syria were told in advance – Syria has good air defences and the US etc fighter jets would have been in the shit otherwise. Syria has said they’re OK with it, but that’s diplomatic speak. They have to say that. Syria has been forced into a diplomatic corner over this – they have no choice but to be seen not to oppose attacks on ISIL and the Khorosan Group. Privately, they’re unhappy as it strengthens the moderate opposition. With the extremists gone and Obama’s coalition supporting the moderate opposition, it will be harder for Assad to hold onto power,

16. We defeated the Nazis, yet Nazis still exist

17. What is weird is the Canadian press is touting the air strikes as successful. I heard those words on CBC on my way home this afternoon & again here in this article.

    As for other forces in the Middle East – I saw on the news last weekend what someone called an army. They didn’t have uniforms, couldn’t march in unison & one guy had no shoes!!

18. 1. I’ve been surprised at how effective air power alone has been over the last 25 years. The First Gulf War, the Wars of the Yugoslav Succession, and the initial phase of the Afghan War were militarily successful largely on the basis of US and allied air power.

    2. In the last 3 cases, Western ground forces were scarcely used in fighting at all, but motivated local ground forces were: Croatians and Bosnians, Kosovars, and the Northern Alliance.

    3. The Kurds are a motivated local ground force, and the initial air support for them has been successful– the ISIS push toward Erbil stopped, Mosul dam retaken, and refugees evacuated from Mt. Sinjar.

    4. It’s much too early to tell what the effect of the airstrikes outside of Kurdistan will be: recall how disbelieving and contemptuous commentators were about Clinton’s air campaign for Kosovo, until it worked.

    5. That said, I don’t see any motivated, local ground forces in Syria, except perhaps the Kurds, so I don’t know where the airstrikes there will ultimately lead.

    1. I agree. Kosovo and Gulf War I are the best examples of how effective air power can be in certain circumstances. If you can achieve overwhelming air superiority, and have the resources to maintain a large air campaign long enough, you can cripple the opposing military. You can render them unable to effectively wage war making it very easy for ground forces to clean up and occupy the opposition’s territory.

       But, as you have said, somebody still has to go in and stand on the ground and, presumably, make it so the opposition can’t regain the ability to cause serious trouble.

       1. “…somebody still has to go in and stand on the ground…”

          My own hope, and it is only a hope, is that Obama refusal to send in large numbers of “boots” will lead to the “somebody” being comprised of troops from neighboring Muslim countries.

          1. I could not agree more.

          2. Perhaps it is happening…

             King Abdullah of Jordan offers the US to send Jordanian ground forces to attack ISIS in Syria

19. There was a report of this on New Zealand’s National Radio (which used to be a serious station)this morning which seemed to require continuous sound effects of bombing, explosions, planes flying past etc. I thought I was listening to a video-game rather than a news item.

20. Sub

21. I think I heard somewhere that ISIS pays their soldiers something like ~$500/month versus ~$100/month for Syrian government. So there may be an economic as well as ideological component to the spread of ISIS.

    1. Since we’re referencing stuff we heard, the one I got was that they paid about 80% of the going wage so-as to weed out people who were not motivated by the cause.

22. Can’t help feeling that we missed a trick with ISIS. I was a television War reporter in Serbia, Bosnia, Sarajevo, Iraq in 1991 (captured), Guatemala (captured) , Guinea-Bissau and elsewhere, and subsequently met with experts on Conflict Resolution who impressed me.

    We should have maintained relationships with the emerging Islamic State and thereby stripped them of the one burning resentment that they are a victim of a Western War against Islam. By forwarding medical and food Aid we might have tempered their liking for executing Westerners and for attacking other religious groups. The long-term cost in munitions and war will easily outstrip the cheaper foreign aid.

    One thing we have learned in the Middle East is how quickly your enemies may become your friends. It is possible and likely that had we not opposed Isis, it would have been a powerful force to knock down all those wicked kingdoms, Syria, The Gulf States, and even including Saudi and Iran. True they would have replaced them with Islamic extremism, which is little different from what they have now, but that seems to be the only and inevitable route to democracy, spread over a period of thirty or fifty years.

    When faced with angry enemies the image one should have in mind is a two-year old in a tantrum. Best opposed with a neutral form of kindness. Each missile we lay on them is a blow to our ability to have influence upon the situation. Most of the Isis fighters are Muslims with little work or world experience. Their hatred of The West has driven them into a corner. Most of them will rapidly become disillusioned at the in-fighting and lack of real enemies. I think that such Modern Diplomacy called ‘Real-Politique’ will become the replacement for war.

    1. “We should have maintained relationships with the emerging Islamic State”

       We had relations with IS?

    2. I really cannot see an Islamic state ever becoming a true democracy as we see it in the West. For example: would there be universal suffrage? Votes for women? That I just cannot ever envisage happening. As I type, the UK press is reporting that a woman in Iran has been sent to prison for watching a volleyball match, so what hope would a male dominated theocracy who seem to deny women’s rights at every turn, enfranchise women?

       http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/ghoncheh-ghavami-brother-pleads-iranian-president-free-sister

23. The New York Times article makes it clear that airstrikes haven’t done much. If they fail to destroy ISIS, which is likely, then what next? What is our end game? As usual, it’s a mess and I don’t see a way out of it. For every ISIS member who dies, two more will spring up to replace him.

    Yesterday I wouldn’t have known how to respond to this. Today I got a gleam of red thread in a political analysis. Interestingly it has implications for accommodationism, because they making the same mistake (bolded below).

    A loosely translated analysis on military and political consequences by a political analyst, specialized on the Middle East:

    Short term, air strikes can’t destroy ISIS. It would need to be tens of thousands air strikes, to date there is ~ 200. But the air strikes should largely stop ISIS areal expansion. [Especially since they happen in both Iraq and Syria, I guess.]

    Politically, it could be a disaster. By responding to ISIS it is legitimized by US, ISIS should now be able to attract many more interested in religious terrorism. And the coalition containing “medieval criminal states” annoys many citizens and could further increase ISIS legitimacy.

    Long term, the coalition should be forced to establish cooperation with Iran – having good intelligence and allies in Iraq – and with Assad’s regime. US would have to ally with the crooks, like Roosevelt was forced to do with Stalin.

    [ http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/usa-kommer-att-tvingas-samarbeta-med-assad/ ]

    Implications for US: Make love, not wars.

    Implications for accommodationists: Humoring religion shouldn’t be working.

    1. “Implications for US: Make love, not wars.”

       Let me modify that, obviously if the air strikes works they will protect many people from killings, displacement, and other atrocities.

       I’ve been listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s speech at Yale, and she expresses what I was grasping for, roughly that maybe war is necessary but we should consider broadening our methods (“a plan B, and a plan C”).

24. If I remember, back in 2009 the French Foreign Minister, Michelle Alliot-Marie was (reluctantly) fired from the Sarkozy government for contacting the Tunisian corrupt President Ben Ali, and proposing to use French force and knowhow to attack the rioters in the first of the Arab Spring revolutions. At the time she was co-operating with Tunisian Ministers to buy a tourist resort under her parent’s name in order to protect her hidden wealth from French taxes. The scandal has not been widely reported in France. But the stink of the wealthy West in supporting corrupt dictators continues to this day.

    I have a dark feeling that by opposing Isis, we may be on the wrong side! Isis may just be the uprising to sweep away the various kings and dictators. That is why I proposed keeping in close contact thereby to develop a relationship which will enable us to end the head-cutting and the attacks on other religions. It is very advanced diplomacy, and it results in our ability to make requests, and then demands in the future. . Advanced diplomacy is more powerful than missiles. They have knives and guns; we have the ability to mobilise the world.

    TO GB James, (did we ever have contact with Isis?) Remember that the UK has 500 to 700 Muslim fighters there, and I suspect many more. There is a turnover, and about 250 have returned to the UK and have been replaced. The British MI6 know who they are, and even know the identity of the chief Head-Cutter; a lad from ‘Sarf Lundon’. It is not difficult to use them for diplomatic openings. And it is important to realise that Diplomacy is not appeasement; it is war by another means whereby we hold most of the cards.

    As to Bonetired, and the suggestion that Isis is a long way from the emancipation of women. I don’t think missiles would help. What does help is to allow the fundie groups to fall so far behind that their own people begin to question their Fourteenth Century lifestyle. I occasionally read Arab journals, and a Saudi cleric questioned why his country is unable to make their own watches, cell-phones and cars. Arabs generally are feeling humiliated by the rise of China and India; peoples whom they once thought-of as inferior. There is a constant pressure to modernise, and Isis will soon feel that pressure. Democracy may take thirty to fifty years, and isn’t it better that we have dialogue with them through that time, rather than force them into entrenchment?

    And so the early mistake of missiles is consolidating Isis. I was born under bombing in London, and have visited bombed and shelled people in many countries, and the results are not good. We may just be able to dislodge Isis after years of bombing, but among those craters a new wave of hostility will be festering. We may be able to save lives THIS YEAR by diplomacy.

    As I do a spell-check, I hear on the news that a French tourist has been beheaded.

    1. The phrase was “relations with ISIS”, which implies something like exchange of diplomats.

       Knowing that you have citizens who have gone to fight for them doesn’t count.

25. sub

Comments are closed.