This image posted on a pro-Isis Twitter account depicts members of the group holding the distinctive banners. BBC
David Kilcullen, Strategist/Real Clear Defense: It's Time to Recognize a Failing Strategy
In the Islamic State (ISIS), we face a determined enemy melding terrorism and guerrilla warfare with an expansionist, state-building agenda and a mastery of online propaganda. And no country has yet mustered the political will or strategic understanding to defeat the group. In strikingly similar speeches on both sides of the Atlantic on 6 July 6, US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron each admitted that no complete strategy is yet in place, and acknowledged this will be a protracted ‘generational’ struggle with many setbacks.
Over the past year, since its capture of Mosul drew a belated response from the United States, Australia and others, ISIS has adapted to western counterterror efforts, repeatedly beaten Iraqi and Syrian regular troops and Iranian-backed militias, established provinces in Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, the Caucasus, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and inspired attacks in western states and several North African and Middle Eastern countries.
WNU Editor: David Kilcullen is an expert on counter insurgency operations .... his analysis in this post is spot on.
I'm not sure there is a strategy that can "defeat: ISIS. They have captured territory at a faster rate and held it more efficiently and effective than the United States military ever could have even before it was worn down from continuing operations around the world. It may be time to admit this is the stronger force and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean one should surrender to them but it does mean a change in focus. As for the United States and other "western" countries, the primary focus should probably be on trying to ensure that our countries are defended well enough to make an invasion by these forces to costly in terms of manpower and money needed to conduct the operations to costly for them to consider it.
Such a focus will probably mean less reliance on the United States by these countries through institutions such as NATO and more reliance on their own forces to defend their countries. After all the United States is going to be hard pressed to defend itself in the coming years. As such, policies that have the United States involved in things such as NATO is nonsensical for us and the other nations involved.
Once troops are properly deployed in ways that make sense for national security needs, this should result in substantial cost savings for us which could in turn be invested in badly needed infrastructure projects. Something that could help us is if we develop more of our own oil and gas reserves along with the refining capacity needed to process this. At least we would have some leverage when dealing with foreign suppliers and we might be able to cut off some of the funding to groups such as ISIS. Right now we have virtually no leverage and, while the loss in funding to ISIS would probably be minimal at best, it should help in terms of morale for our people. At best, even if we started now this is years away from any real impact.
In any event, redeployment of troops to positions that make sense for our national security will make America safer and should help the economy as a secure environment is very helpful in securing the necessary investments in our economy. Each "western" nation will need to adopt national security strategies that make sense for their unique situations. The idea that a strategy can be formulated that will "defeat" ISIS is probably unrealistic. At least on our own it is.
Perhaps a strategy could be formulated whereby we assist Russia, Iran, and Syria in defeating ISIS. Unfortunately these nations are also enemies of us as well!! For America regardless how this works out it is "out of the frying pan into the oven" so to speak. This is a major reason in why it is vitally important that we properly deploy our troops in such a manner as to give us the best chance to defend our nation. A bit off topic but extricating ourselves from Ukraine by any and all means necessary would be extremely helpful.
The article above just a depressed summary of the general situation. I do not question it's words, but there are more details which make things look a bit different. I may not see/mean COIN and wars as under which term/theory they belong, I learned about wars in a different way. Also seems like I'm the only person in this planet who realy think the strategy work as intended.
ReplyDeleteIn conflicts, underestimating anyone is a bad and dangerous thing, but not any worst than overestimating. I see IS forces being over mystifyed, and if some belive it, IS propaganda already reached it's goals. I'm not pessimistic about the situation. The frontlines are open, there are plenty of chances that the forces fighting against IS can use. In general the situation is not so bad on fighting against IS, but as in every war there is always a chance for a loose. I only care about the military aspect of the conflict, not the political nor religious things, but there could be some event which could blow every prediction (the idea of a Turkish military operation inside Syria is such a scenario). As for now, if things will going in the current way, in the big picture it's still a winning for me, which winning seems like loosing in public.