Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flpoljunkie

(26,184 posts)
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:37 PM Jun 2014

Fred Kaplan: It’s Not Our War. The United States should help others crush ISIS, and not much else.

It’s Not Our War
The United States should help others crush ISIS, and not much else.

By Fred Kaplan


Units of Moqtada Sadr's militia parade down a main street of the Shi'a stronghold of Sadr City June 21, 2014, in Eastern Baghdad.
ISIS is well-armed, but not invincible.
Photo by Scott Nelson for the Washington Post

Despite prodding from the United States and others, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn’t want to share power, the Kurds don’t want to give up a shot at independence, and the Sunnis would rather stick with murderous jihadist protectors than trust a Shiite government that shuns their demands and persecutes their leaders.

Should any of this surprise us? More to the point, why do some among us persist in thinking that, through three cups of tea and a few well-aimed airstrikes, we can persuade sectarian chieftains to cede their vital interests to some greater good as defined by foreign powers?

Earlier today, after meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, Maliki denounced the demands for a new, more inclusive Iraqi government, saying that such a move would amount to a “coup”—which, indeed, it would. Maliki recently won the popular vote in a national election, and while his party hasn’t yet assembled a working majority in parliament, no other obvious leader sits poised on the sidelines. Maliki knows that the countries most keen to beat back the Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—especially Iran, the neighboring ally that counts most—have no choice but to support him for now. He might also look for inspiration from Bashar al-Assad, whose days as Syrian president were long ago deemed over and who nonetheless hangs on. Not only do delusions run deep, sometimes in the short run they’re justified.

Yet this delusion is particularly dangerous, and even Maliki must know it on some level. ISIS forces in Iraq are said to number a little more than 5,000. During the American occupation, strategists spoke of the need to “clear, hold, and build” an area. In other words, they needed enough troops to sweep an area of bad guys and move on to the next locale—while at the same time leaving troops behind to control the ground. The United States had a hard time doing this with 100,000 troops; ISIS can’t do it with a small fraction of that number. To the extent they’re able to hold their territory, they do so because local Sunnis—who dominate the areas conquered so far—prefer ISIS to Maliki’s Shiite government. They may not like the idea of sharia law or an ISIS state, but they see the ISIS guerrillas as their best hope for weakening or overthrowing Maliki, and so they go along for now.

more…

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/06/united_states_role_in_fighting_isis_in_iraq_the_u_s_military_should_help.html
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Kaplan: It’s Not Our War. The United States should help others crush ISIS, and not much else. (Original Post) flpoljunkie Jun 2014 OP
This article is weird in that it knocks Obama/Kerry, then makes a case for exactly karynnj Jun 2014 #1

karynnj

(59,502 posts)
1. This article is weird in that it knocks Obama/Kerry, then makes a case for exactly
Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:57 PM
Jun 2014

what Kerry has said regularly. Obama and Kerry have been clear about two things - 1) Iraq needs an inclusive government to fight ISIS (for essentially the reasons he describes) 2) The Iraqis must be the ones who choose their government. In addition, they are speaking to the region to have others back the same goals.

But imagine if a new Iraqi government were formed, whether by Maliki or someone else, and several Sunni leaders joined it and declared that it would serve all Iraqis, not just Shiites—many Sunnis, who have been entrusted by ISIS to fly its flag and enforce its laws, might back off and join the pro-government resistance.

This is why an inclusive Iraqi government—one that’s seen as serving the interests of all Iraqis, not just Shiites—is crucial. It’s the only way to drive a wedge between ISIS and more moderate Sunnis. In other words, it’s the only way to crush ISIS.
Simply bombing ISIS strongholds won’t do the trick. In fact, military action alone will only further alienate the Sunnis—and reinforce the notion that America serves as Maliki’s air force.


This is PRECISELY why Obama sent John Kerry to deal with this. (Kerry, in fact, has spoken of things like you suggest since a regional summit was part of Kerry/Feingold in 2006)

Kerry has made the exact same point with regards to bombing - saying it would be irresponsible without a unified government, backup and a chance for success - and said the US can not work for a sectarian government.

As to US giving Syria information to strike, Kerry spoke against Syria and Iran. Lindsey Graham might well do that -- I suspect Obama would not.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Fred Kaplan: It’s Not Our...