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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFred Kaplan: It’s Not Our War. The United States should help others crush ISIS, and not much else.
Its 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 doesnt want to share power, the Kurds dont 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 coupwhich, indeed, it would. Maliki recently won the popular vote in a national election, and while his party hasnt 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 Syriaespecially Iran, the neighboring ally that counts mosthave 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 theyre 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 localewhile 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 cant do it with a small fraction of that number. To the extent theyre able to hold their territory, they do so because local Sunniswho dominate the areas conquered so farprefer ISIS to Malikis 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
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 doesnt want to share power, the Kurds dont 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 coupwhich, indeed, it would. Maliki recently won the popular vote in a national election, and while his party hasnt 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 Syriaespecially Iran, the neighboring ally that counts mosthave 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 theyre 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 localewhile 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 cant do it with a small fraction of that number. To the extent theyre able to hold their territory, they do so because local Sunniswho dominate the areas conquered so farprefer ISIS to Malikis 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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1035 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
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
karynnj
(59,510 posts)1. This article is weird in that it knocks Obama/Kerry, then makes a case for exactly
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 Shiitesmany 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 governmentone thats seen as serving the interests of all Iraqis, not just Shiitesis crucial. Its the only way to drive a wedge between ISIS and more moderate Sunnis. In other words, its the only way to crush ISIS.
Simply bombing ISIS strongholds wont do the trick. In fact, military action alone will only further alienate the Sunnisand reinforce the notion that America serves as Malikis 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.