4 ms·

> making progress with ISIS They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: Build up Iraqi political authority and military effectiveness until they are

> making progress with ISIS They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: Build up Iraqi political authority and military effectiveness until they are ready to both drive out ISIS themselves, and to maintain military and political control of the areas on the long term. Under Obama, they built up the Iraqi army from the one that fled ISIS en mass to one that could fight long, difficult battles and hold ground permanently, and they built up the Iraqi central government's political authority. Under Obama were the first few victories and tests of the rebuilt Iraqi army, and they continued moving forward under the Trump administration. It's based on a lesson the U.S. (re)learned in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Driving out the enemy militarily is only the first step, and not at all sufficient. Then someone must establish political authority, including military control over the area and its people, or the enemy will simply return to claim it themselves - which is what happened with ISIS. The most famous dictum in military affairs is that 'war is politics by other means'. (Also, it makes more sense for the Iraqis to die for the nation of Iraq than the Americans.) It's very hard for a foreign occupier to establish that political authority and maintain military control - imagine the prospect of the Iraqi army, no matter what their resources, trying to establish political authority in your town - and it requires lives and massive expenditures over decades, more than the U.S. is willing to invest (thankfully). Note that even the great historical empires used locals to run their foreign territories - overseen, of course, by an imperial governor and garrison.

rdtsc 9y ago
Very good points. We all of course remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished". Yeah, losing territory is not the whole story. However it's an easily noticeable benchmark, and it's hard to claim ISIS holds a grip in the region if doesn't control cities and towns like it did. > They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: It depends how its executed. I would imagine the general outline would be the same, unless we switch to boots on the ground, or not using drones and so on, but sometimes it is the tweaks and adjustments that make a difference. At least looking at the territory it controlled, there was a much faster contraction there under Trump. Maybe Obama's plan finally had come to fruition and territory contraction coincided exactly with Trump's taking over the presidency, but that's a bit of a stretch I think. Moreover, as much as we can say Obama had the same plan, it's good to remember that ISIS also grew on his watch. I don't believe that something like ISIS took us completely by surprise as government officials claimed. US had its fingers in the pie in the region since the Cold War, we might not have directly supported it, but we knew about it and maybe even allowed it grow, in order to destabilize Syria.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Ironically, ISIS had the same problem that the U.S. did in Iraq: An inability to politically and militarily secure the territory it captured. If you can't hold the territory for the long-term, militarily and politically, you are wasting lives and money in capturing it. Regarding the U.S.: If we talk about what 'could be' or 'maybe' or what we 'imagine', as the parent comment does, we can make any claim. Based on what the military and experts have consistently said and on the facts on the ground: It's the same plan, working as designed; ISIS' loss of territory did not coincide with Trump taking office, it began in 2016. > ISIS also grew on his [Obama's] watch That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. > we knew about it [ISIS] and maybe even allowed it grow, in order to destabilize Syria. Starting form the fundamentals of international relations (as I understand them), as the global, status quo superpower the U.S. wants stability globally, which protects the U.S.-led international order; ISIS is a threat to global stability. The U.S. has particularly supported stability in that region, to secure the global oil supply (essential to global stability and the U.S. economy) and also to protect the region's status quo U.S.-supported power structure, based in recent decades on the Saudis, Israel and Egypt. The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: The Americans even have allied in places with enemies including the Iranians (including in Iraq), Russians, Assad, and even other small fundamentalist groups against ISIS. That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, however. ISIS began in Syria, outside of the U.S.'s sphere at the time, and then spread to Iraq. The U.S.'s options in Iraq at the time were limited. The Iraqi government refused to allow U.S. forces in the country (that was the deal agreed to by Bush and executed by Obama, withdrawing U.S. forces). Also, the Iraqi army may have been expected to put up a fight instead of simply fleeing when faced with what were (IIRC) inferior forces.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. Of course it does. If Obama was supporting and involved in propping up Syrian "rebels" in the area, with groups of people and equipment switching sides, he was not effectively 100% committed to wiping it out. So the strategy was the same, but pumping resources fighting Assad in the region on another hand was undermining that strategy. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels/exclusive-cia-backed-aid-for-syrian-rebels-frozen-after-islamist-attack-sources-idUSKBN1601BD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebe... http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/i... > The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: Right but it only took until Trump was elected to stop feeding "rebels" fighting Assad. Well at least that's what the press releases say. So U.S. actions were a schizophrenic and certainly don't say anything "clearly". > That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, Obama says it did http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/i... . He blames CIA backhandedly: "The ability of ISIL to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," [Obama told Zakaria]

rdtsc 9y ago

Very good points. We all of course remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished". Yeah, losing territory is not the whole story. However it's an easily noticeable benchmark, and it's hard to claim ISIS holds a grip in the region if doesn't control cities and towns like it did. > They follow the same plan as the Obama administration: It depends how its executed. I would imagine the general outline would be the same, unless we switch to boots on the ground, or not using drones and so on, but sometimes it is the tweaks and adjustments that make a difference. At least looking at the territory it controlled, there was a much faster contraction there under Trump. Maybe Obama's plan finally had come to fruition and territory contraction coincided exactly with Trump's taking over the presidency, but that's a bit of a stretch I think. Moreover, as much as we can say Obama had the same plan, it's good to remember that ISIS also grew on his watch. I don't believe that something like ISIS took us completely by surprise as government officials claimed. US had its fingers in the pie in the region since the Cold War, we might not have directly supported it, but we knew about it and maybe even allowed it grow, in order to destabilize Syria.

forapurpose 9y ago
Ironically, ISIS had the same problem that the U.S. did in Iraq: An inability to politically and militarily secure the territory it captured. If you can't hold the territory for the long-term, militarily and politically, you are wasting lives and money in capturing it. Regarding the U.S.: If we talk about what 'could be' or 'maybe' or what we 'imagine', as the parent comment does, we can make any claim. Based on what the military and experts have consistently said and on the facts on the ground: It's the same plan, working as designed; ISIS' loss of territory did not coincide with Trump taking office, it began in 2016. > ISIS also grew on his [Obama's] watch That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. > we knew about it [ISIS] and maybe even allowed it grow, in order to destabilize Syria. Starting form the fundamentals of international relations (as I understand them), as the global, status quo superpower the U.S. wants stability globally, which protects the U.S.-led international order; ISIS is a threat to global stability. The U.S. has particularly supported stability in that region, to secure the global oil supply (essential to global stability and the U.S. economy) and also to protect the region's status quo U.S.-supported power structure, based in recent decades on the Saudis, Israel and Egypt. The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: The Americans even have allied in places with enemies including the Iranians (including in Iraq), Russians, Assad, and even other small fundamentalist groups against ISIS. That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, however. ISIS began in Syria, outside of the U.S.'s sphere at the time, and then spread to Iraq. The U.S.'s options in Iraq at the time were limited. The Iraqi government refused to allow U.S. forces in the country (that was the deal agreed to by Bush and executed by Obama, withdrawing U.S. forces). Also, the Iraqi army may have been expected to put up a fight instead of simply fleeing when faced with what were (IIRC) inferior forces.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > That has no implications for Trump's effectiveness. Of course it does. If Obama was supporting and involved in propping up Syrian "rebels" in the area, with groups of people and equipment switching sides, he was not effectively 100% committed to wiping it out. So the strategy was the same, but pumping resources fighting Assad in the region on another hand was undermining that strategy. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels/exclusive-cia-backed-aid-for-syrian-rebels-frozen-after-islamist-attack-sources-idUSKBN1601BD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebe... http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-arming-rebels/i... > The U.S., by its actions, clearly prefers Assad to ISIS: Right but it only took until Trump was elected to stop feeding "rebels" fighting Assad. Well at least that's what the press releases say. So U.S. actions were a schizophrenic and certainly don't say anything "clearly". > That doesn't mean ISIS took the U.S. by surprise, Obama says it did http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/isis-surprise-obama/i... . He blames CIA backhandedly: "The ability of ISIL to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," [Obama told Zakaria]