Striking a balance with US military intervention

President Obama’s recent military action in Syria against radical Islamic militants has been highly criticized for its legal rationale and long-term strategy. Some believe military action is warranted given the barbarism of terrorists and the potential threats they pose to the homeland. Others cite high-ranking administration officials who have reiterated that there are no credible threats to the U.S. homeland as reason not to get involved in a complex three-year civil war. Can the U.S. strike a balance between an interventionist foreign policy that has included nation-building and isolationism — or at the very least, disengagement from the Middle East?

{mosads}Critics of the Syrian military offensive ask: Why the United States hasn’t intervened in other regions where radical militants express desire to strike the United States, such as Nigeria or Libya? Additionally, after the United States responded to pleas for help when the Iraqi army was overrun by extremist militants who threatened to commit mass genocide to the Iraqi Yazidis marooned on the top of a barren mountain, many asked: Why hasn’t the U.S. assisted in other humanitarian crises, such as, ironically, Syria after the government used chemical weapons on its own civilians?

In Nigeria, the host government does not have a favorable track record on human rights, which is partly attributable to their struggle and inability to combat the Boko Haram insurgency. U.S. domestic law prohibits aid to countries with subpar human rights records under what is known as the Leahy Law (although the government has been known to make exceptions to certain funding and aid provisions for strategic political reasons.) Department of Defense officials, however, testified on Capitol Hill that they had shared intelligence with the Nigerian government, which does not violate the Leahy provisions, and the U.S. committed unmanned aircraft to assist in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) all in an effort to help find over 200 girls who were kidnapped by the group.

Libya is another example of a failed state due, in part, to excessive foreign intervention without a foreseeable plan for the future. Intervening now to save Libya and quell radical Islamist and anti-American militias who currently enjoy freedom of movement would be a costly and time-consuming effort a la Afghanistan. Though the NATO coalition displaced a ruthless dictator (some disagree), the current Libyan state is unruly.

The efforts in Syria and Iraq seek to achieve, among other goals, to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), then eventually rid Syrian President Bashar Assad from power. The president wants to eschew ground troops in Iraq and Syria for political reasons. Both goals previously mentioned will require extended commitments to the region — seeing the coalition through and building up a group to fill the vacuum after ISIS and Assad. Such necessities run the risk of committing the U.S. to another “dumb” war as the president so bluntly described the George W. Bush administration’s military ventures. As Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) stated in an address recently, “if we have to put ground troops in, it’s because the region itself is not fighting [ISIS].” This statement is an important reminder that the United States cannot and should not fight regional battles for others.

Efforts are better spent shoring up intelligence and assisting partners who are more reliable. Using Iraq as a suitable example, President Obama recently decided he would only act militarily if and when Iraq formed a new government following elections and committed to being more inclusive to all ethnicities.

If or when the United States decides to militarily enter conflicts, there should be a clear end-strategy with reliable partners. The president’s counterterror campaigns (namely drone strikes) abroad enjoy the blessings and partnerships with host governments (for the most part) — the same cannot be said in Syria because the United States has completely ruled out partnering with what they deem as an illegitimate regime. The U.S. counterterrorism actions, while extremely controversial, are sought to deter other terrorists and prevent attacks against the U.S. and its interests without committing itself to sustained military operations. By declaring that the U.S. will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS, the president has committed the U.S. long term as experts believe this effort will take years. If, by simply aiding the Iraqi military to push back ISIS upon their request, the U.S. would have provided itself more flexibility.

The U.S. cannot afford to intercede in each global conflict. It must embody some form of discretion when intervening abroad. Nation-building is costly, as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, the U.S. risks making the same mistake of paying for sustained military engagement on a credit card at the expense of the troubled (and still rebounding) American economy. In today’s era of sequestration, it is unclear how the military will fund their actions. Engaging in every conflict (especially in the Middle East) with extremists who embrace radical ideology against the United States is not a sustainable model.

Pomerleau is a freelance journalist based in Washington covering politics and policy. Follow him @MpoM24.