In combating ISIS, Obama risks repeating Iraq mistakes

When Barack Obama announced in May 2011 that Osama bin Laden had been killed he and a a war-weary public appeared to believe that the war on terrorism was over. Thousands cheered outside the White House but for most Americans there was more a sense of relief than joy. Perhaps, after more than a decade of conflict triggered by the darkest event of a young 21st century, America could move on.

Maybe America’s leaders could start looking more closely at the fractures and failings of their own country, rather than dealing with the legacy of trying to force change on far-away places with whose leaders they disagreed. Sadly, the American people have again been disappointed. Once more, with the rise of the militant killers who call themselves the Islamic State, the U.S. is on a war footing.

{mosads}It is no wonder that White House correspondents say Obama has the worst job in the world. On the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the president had to explain on live television that a new military campaign was needed to protect the homeland. Before he was elected, when his hair was black rather than speckled grey, Obama opposed the war in Iraq . In office he pledged to end “dumb wars” and stuck to that plan, withdrawing all American troops from Iraq within a few months of bin Laden’s death. The same course is under way in Afghanistan

But having sought to close the book, Obama is now scripting an epilogue. ISIS, which until a few months ago was deemed a ragtag outfit of little threat, shattered his plans. Two weeks before his speech, Obama drew ridicule for saying the United States did not yet have a strategy to confront ISIS.  His latest talk failed if it was meant to give us the necessary detail.

“No boots on the ground” are the words uttered by White House officials seeking to summarize what may be about to happen in Iraq and Syria. It is a deeply unoriginal phrase, as well as a misleading one. Anyone hoping that a few hundred more U.S. military advisers in Baghdad and further airstrikes against ISIS-held territory will turn the tide are deluding themselves.

It is not just Obama who should know better. If the invasion of Iraq in 2003 proved one thing it was the limits of military power. By 2007 in Iraq, the U.S. Army had realized this. In Anbar it started paying a $300 monthly salary to Sunni men of fighting age to put down rather than fire their weapons. The policy worked, taming an insurgency that was killing American soldiers. Years earlier, a then little known officer named General David Petraeus employed similar financial motivation in the northern city of Mosul to discourage locals from shooting at his men. But when the insurgency worsened in and around Baghdad, Mosul—now held by ISIS –was left poorly defended and a new insurgency developed. Only after the Petraeus-led surge in 2008 did matters improve.

Somehow, years later against ISIS, Obama, with neither U.S. ground forces nor a plan to persuade less fatalistic jihadists to forgo martyrdom for dollars or a job, hopes to achieve a better outcome. What’s more, this time around America’s enemy is more formidable, armed with U.S. artillery and armaments seized from fleeing Iraqi soldiers this summer. The jihadists have lost little territory since their lightning offensive into northern Iraq from Syria at the start of June.

When U.S. airstrikes end—as they eventually must—the bad guys are just as likely to return, given how ineffective the Iraqi Army has proven to be. If years of US-training before 2012 could not produce a fighting force capable of defending Iraqi soil, then neither will a few months of retraining. Saudi Arabia has offered to host the training of a new coalition of fighters to tackle ISIS , but any military man will tell you that this cannot be done quickly. Without a means to stop ISIS—even more ruthless than Al-Qaeda, which it broke away from—quickly, the militants will consolidate their gains.

The situation in Syria makes matters worse. Obama’s detractors say he should have armed so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria long ago to cut ISIS off at the kneecaps. Such soothsayers forget that Robert Ford, the U.S. diplomat tasked with formulating such a plan, couldn’t figure out who these so-called “friendlies” were. By seeking to arm the now-depleted anti-Assad rebel forces the desired outcome is unclear. Both ISIS and Assad are stronger than before and Assad has been ruled out as an ally. Iran, which supported the Syrian leader from the start, blames America and Saudi Arabia for funding the rebels, which it says now comprise ISIS. The new U.S.-backed rebel force, whose opponents would be Assad and likely the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, presents a terrible prospect of more civil war along with more refugees across the region. Given the difficulty in devising a workable plan for Syria before, the lack of detail this time around bodes ill.

Regardless, Obama has chosen to ignore this scenario. His approval rating now is lower than that for George W. Bush, who on May 1, 2003 declared U.S. combat operations in Iraq to be over, as a “Mission Accomplished” banner fluttered behind him. Within months, Iraq was burning, with sectarian killings in the thousands. ISIS is just the latest chapter in a conflict that the American journalist Dexter Filkins, in an award-winning book in 2008, dubbed “The Forever War.”

Obama was not the architect of this mess, but he is the caretaker. His current plan is not credible against a force that has held a third of Iraq ‘s land for three months. ISIS fighters are more bloodthirsty than Al-Qaeda members—the former seek to kill Shias, persecute religious minorities and enslave women. They also are better financed and as a military force well-disciplined, as its routing of Iraqi forces in June proved.

Leaders in the region hesitate to speak publicly, but some privately fear that the U.S. campaign will be crippled before it begins by the limitations placed on it.  Americans are tired of war, but they must either go after ISIS now or risk a repeat of 9/11, after which they then will go after ISIS.  This is no time for half-measures. To defend America Mr. Obama, and perhaps his successor, should be prepared to put boots back on the ground in Iraq.
                                                                               
Fawaz is chief executive of the Raddington Group, a risk management firm.  He is experienced in counterterrorism and intelligence, and frequently has provided strategic advice to Middle Eastern leaders.