Here are the salient goals Hillary Clinton laid out at her address to Council of Foreign Relations today followed by my comments. There are many pieces to her strategy, several of which seem unlikely to happen as she proposes.
Here is what she calls for:
ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions—a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria, an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond, and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three.
An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.
That’s a huge commitment to make. Hillary assumes we can control things that are not really in our control. The phrasing here seems to lack understanding of the subtlety of working in other countries.
A key obstacle standing in the way is a shortage of good intelligence about ISIS and its operations. So we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, Arabic speakers with deep expertise in the Middle East, an even closer partnership with regional intelligence services.
This seems the most doable of all the goals. And one we should definitely put resources into.
On the Iraqi side of the border, Kurdish forces have fought bravely to defend their own lands and to retake towns from ISIS, but the Iraqi National Army has struggled and it’s going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.
She calls for more nation-building in Iraq. Haven’t we learned the futility of that? It’s questionable how capable the Iraqi National Army will become.
We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally, stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.
This in an interesting passage. She sets the goal of pushing Iraq to become the state we want it to be. Which again sounds far-fetched — we have plenty of evidence that we can’t mold Iraq to our wishes. But then she says, if Iraq won’t arm these people, we will. Meaning we get more involved on a lower level with the various parties that in many cases have proven difficult to work with. And we make an even larger commitment.
On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS beyond the Syrian Kurds, who are already deep in the fight is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad, who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well, so we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well.
So we will solve the Syrian Civil War and do nation-building in Syria as well. It sounds naïve. Will this happen? What reason do we have to think it will, other than we think that it should? What if it doesn’t?
And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability.
The goal is to get Iran and Russia to share our vision and to realize that supporting Assad is wrong. Even though we have proven to be spectacularly wrong about the Middle East on multiple instances. Will Russia and Iran (whom Hillary was disparaging and threatening just last month) do what we want just because we say they must? This again sounds naïve.
Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners, and we must get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.
It’s hard not be sarcastic. Is she referring to our Arab partners who supply funds for Islamic extremists? The record here is not good. Again, this goal runs counter to proven reality.
As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.
Turkey, like all the other players here, has its own view of what’s important. Sure, it would be wonderful if they would make nice with the Kurds and do what we want. But nations follow their own ideas. Turkey is very worried about the Kurds.
We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.
It’s notable how she weaves antipathy toward Iran into this. So we’re going to be punishing Iran (how?) at the same time as we are cajoling, molding, buying off all these other players. It’s an immense commitment.
Later on she drops this:
We have to join with our partners to do the patient, steady work of empowering moderates and marginalizing extremists, supporting democratic institutions and the rule of law, creating economic growth that supports stability, working to curb corruption, helping train effective and accountable law enforcement, intelligence, and counterterrorism services.
On top of all the nation-building, punishing, cajoling, civil-war solving, etc., we’re going to be creating economic growth that supports stability in Syria and Iraq, and I guess in surrounding areas where support for ISIS comes from. We’ll definitely need a magic wand for this one.
This speech isn’t a realistic strategy. It’s a wish list.