WHAT DOES THE U.S. NEED, TO GET MORE INVOLVED AGAINST ISIL?

…ISIL taking over a city in Iraq

 

ISIL has now threatened to attack the American homeland.  What do we do now?

 

For weeks I have been saying that there are options to putting tens of thousands of US “boots on the ground” in Syria or Iraq against ISIL.  But no, I do not want to go in the direction of what the Republican candidates want to do such as Donald Trump who wants to close all the Muslim Mosques in America or Rand Paul’s idea for closing down the NSA.

 

But one thing I was hoping, was that all those Republican Governors that keep sending messages to the president saying that they don’t want any Syrian refugees in their state to please bone up on how the US government works.  The entrance of immigrants into the US is a federal issue and state governors can’t legally tell the US government that no refugees are allowed to enter their US states.

 

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not one of those bleeding hearts that wants to allow any and all of the Syrian refugees into the US.  In fact, the allowed numbers should be somewhat modest and if those wanting to enter cannot be properly vetted, especially young male refugees over 12 years old, they should not be allowed in the country. 

 

My real issue is that I do agree with some of those that feel that the president was wrong when he referred to ISIL as the “J.V. team”.  I also don’t agree when he said that ISIL had been “contained”.  I do not feel that from what I’ve learned, the 8,000 US bombing sorties over Iraq and Syria have not been done properly.  As an example, the US had known about an ISIL training center in Raqqa for months.  It wasn’t until the day after the attack on Paris that it was French Mirage bombers that finally took out the ISIL training center in their capital city in Syria.  Why did the US even allow that training center to continue to exist?

 

Many of the president’s military and middle east advisors have said that a US ground force in the area would not have to be very large.  The successful main US assault force in the largest battle of the war in Fallujah, Iraq, back in 2004, only had a total of 7,000 to 8,000 troops.  And all those troops in Syria would not have to be American. French and other experienced NATO troops could complement US forces, as well as could effective Iraqi and Syrian formations. But without US ground forces, none of this effort could ever take place.  Let’s face it, being that ISIL exists today is mainly because of the US invasion of Iraq.  The US must accept more than just a little of the responsibility for the current turmoil in the middle east.

 

Without a force taking a stronger approach against ISIL, the Islamic State will hold its current caliphate or “state” together and its counterattacks will continue to destabilize much of the area. 

 

Today, ISIL holds territory, they have a source of revenue with their captured oil wells, they know technology well enough to use social media for their recruiting efforts, and they have collected enough revenue to more than continue compensating their troops.  Therefore, if they are not stopped, ISIL could stay alive for many, many months. 

 

ISIL is also aware of the problems that all of the thousands of fleeing refugees are causing the surrounding countries.  At the same time, as they continue to survive, it leaves the United States totally exposed to the possibility of terrorist attacks like the bomb on the Russian plane or the attacks in Beirut or Paris.

 

So, why isn’t a traditional military operation getting serious discussion in the US?

 

In part, it’s because many Americans, not to speak of our European allies, consider military operations, and especially ground military operations in the Middle East to be counterproductive at best and disasters at worst.  As an example, the British Parliament just opted out of supporting any air operations over Syria.

 

Before the Paris attacks, the polls showed that a large majority of Americans were disillusioned about a serious campaign against the Islamic State.  The obvious threat was recognized, but more than half still opposed the use of US ground troops. This mind-set was mainly strengthened by the struggles that our mid-east ground forces had in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  But in some ways, it goes all the way back to past US failures in Somalia, Beirut and even Vietnam.

 

The other issue is, what happens when any military operations would be finished?  Things went into the sewer when we left Iraq and started leaving Afghanistan.  Wouldn’t that just happen again once we left?   Who would fill the vacuum of leadership once a coalition force was gone? 

 

These people have never had a real concept of how a Democracy works.  Democracies are not easy, and any vacuum in leadership is a perfect time for a strong individual or radical group to take over.  And with the Muslim tribes of Shia’s and Sunni’s that have been at war for thousands of years, not to mention their fights with the Kurds, what are the chances for a lasting peace amongst these constant rivals?

 

However, if we don’t at least get rid of ISIL, the current problems will not disappear.  In fact, they will only get worse.

 

The reality is that the Islamic State itself has taken tens of thousands of innocent lives in the region, and now hundreds more civilian lives in Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon and now France.  They have made it clear that their goal is to annihilate all those who are not Muslim.

 

The question for America, as the strongest military in the world is, “At what point does such a growing river of blood and killing justify risking more young American lives?”

 

Not an easy question to answer.  But being an isolationist nation is also not the answer.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2015