Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[Bill Moore]

It seems to me that in the post WWII era, with a noted escalation in the post Cold War era, we fight far more often for national emotion than for national interest .

Fear, pride, anger, ego, false duty, etc. It rarely ends well when we confuse emotion for interest. To make matters worse we have even morphed our national security strategy in this same era to codify an emotion-based approach to interests.

We need a return to the practical pragmatism we practiced more as a rising nation. We've lways been driven by emotion, be it our decision to fight the Barbary pirates while everyone else paid tribute, or the constant string of "remember the xxxxx" battle cry's that work so well to motivate Americans to war - but it has gotten worse in this era of self-determination, shifting balances of power and our own strategic confusion over all of the above.

Clint Eastwood once said the best acting advice he ever received was "Don't just do something, stand there. Gary Cooper was never afraid to do nothing."

Our foreign policy is not Eastwoodesque or Cooperesque in any way. Certainly not Wayneesque, and in no way George Washingtonesque. We need to just stand there and think about that.

What I find interesting during debates is I can make a seemingly rational argument for multiple options. Take ISIL for example, I can make a rational argument on why we should engage and why we should ignore it. I can throw emotion into either argument to motivate the bulk of the people who are motivated by emotion (emotion equates to motivation, which is why those promoting change, action, etc. play to emotion).

The point is, I wonder if that reflects strategic confusion, or simply a reflection of strategic reality where there are no absolute right or wrong answers, only educated and non-educated opinions. We have four enduring national interests, and you can logically argue we should be involved in most conflicts by making links to them. Ultimately we need to accept that democracy is messy, and emotion is part and parcel of the package. Acting on emotion can result in stupid decisions, but failing to act on emotion in other cases (for example, preventing mass atrocities) can be devalue what we claim to stand for as a nation. I think our national identity is in our national interests, but understandably many disagree.

Enduring interests (regardless of political party in power)

1. Protect the U.S. and U.S. persons. (security)

2. Economic interests (prosperity)

3. International order that promotes our interests

4. Values (human rights, democracy, etc.)

[Bill Moore]

Once again the saying that all politics are local proves to fall short. For those that think ISIL is a local movement, they have now expanded to Libya. Foreign fighters returning home to select locations can clearly be a threat to one's national security.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

ISIS comes to Libya

Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union.

The fighters are taking advantage of political chaos to rapidly expand their presence westwards along the coast, Libyan sources tell CNN.

[jcustis]

Bill,

I have long been of the opinion that there are no absolute right or wrong answers. We run the risk of loosing our way trying to find those absolutes, or trying to defend them as such,[

As for ISIS in Libya, the problem is significant not only as it relates to Derna, but the entire span of terrain running from Algeria, through the Nile Delta, across the Suez and Gulf of Aquaba, and over to the intersection of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

I read portions of three Egyptian online newspapers just about daily, and there is a great concern over the possibility (more like likelihood) of ISIS fusing with militants in the Sinai and in turn squeezing Egypt between malign actors there and in Libya.

Back some 6-7 years ago I used to discount the knuckleheads who claimed allegiance with Al Qaeda, and believe most of them to be localized elements who never even understood what AQ's ideology, method, and endstate was. They merely knew that AQ was a thorn in the side of the US and so they felt it necessary to "be down with AQ", whether it be AQI, AQAP etc.

ISIS is something different. Same level of showmanship, but it has something AQ hasn't been able to produce for at least the past five years--results. I'm am still cautious when I hear the media state that militant forces at "X" location are loyal to ISIS. What defines loyalty? Is it earned? Given freely? IS there a code to follow like the Masons or is it just a matter of assuming the brand name and riding its coat tails? Unless the loyalty brings manpower, weapons, financing and logistical support its just a bumper sticker and not really a big deal. Millions of people around the word subscribe to various ideologies that are inimical to US interests, but we haven't taken to hunting them down to deal with the via kinetics yet. Heck, for many of them we don't bother to think of their dramas at all.

ISIS and the elements of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis have begun this alliance dance in the Sinai, so the issue of ISIS influence is broader than Libya. I don't believe they have the ability to do more at the moment than attack a border outpost or two, and will not be able to grow to any effective size because of the pressure Egypt's security forces are applying, the fact that Egypt is considerably more stable (despite the media sound bytes) than Libya and Sudan combined, and the fact that counterinsurgent effort is about to be applied around the region to a degree not seen before.

That could change with the right spark though.

What we will have, without a doubt, are pretty solid 5-10 years of instability in the region that will require all instruments of national power to deal with. There will be flare-ups fairly regularly, and we are going to have to decide how we want to suppress them. That whole finite resources thing is kinda a big deal.

[Bill Moore]

North Africa is going through another political revolution, and that will take time to sort out. It won't be settled until the extremists are purged.

I disagree that AQ was ineffective, it was AQ that led the West into a global war that expands well beyond Afghanistan. Their brand may have grown stale, but like IBM and Microsoft that will exist for a long time, despite the dynamic upstarts who create their own form of creative destruction. ISIS/ISIL certainly gets a lot of cool points in the extremist and want to be extremist world due to their effectiveness. It seems people are tripping over each other to join the fight there. It provides an identity and an outlet for angry young men, but clearly it is bigger than that.

What concerns me most is ISIS/ISIL's potential base in Libya are their ambitions to attack the West, and with a foothold in North Africa they have easy access to Italy. Italy can't control the illegal immigration from North Africa (anymore than we control illegals flowing into our country), so the rat lines are well established. I have little doubt they have human networks in Italy and France they can use to help facilitate future attacks.

http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...ader/41646.htm

ISIS threatens Vatican, urges Muslims to 'kill every crusader'

"At this point of the crusade against the Islamic State, it is very important that attacks take place in every country that has entered into the alliance against the Islamic State, especially the US, [the] UK, France, Australia and Germany," it reads.

Many will dismiss this as rhetoric, but AQ and ISIS generally are quite open when it comes to sharing their strategy. We ignore it to our own peril. Know yourself and know your enemy sort of thing. I suspect attacks will begin in Western Europe soon (within the next 2 years, but likely within the next year). They may be small, but they'll have considerable symbolic value for ISIS/ISIL and the West. A value that will be magnified by the media. Doing COIN in response will not address our security concerns anymore than it has for the past 10 years. Kilcullen is right that is time to rethink this whole thing.

[jcustis]

Kilcullen is right that is time to rethink this whole thing.

Yup.

[Bob's World]

What I find interesting during debates is I can make a seemingly rational argument for multiple options. Take ISIL for example, I can make a rational argument on why we should engage and why we should ignore it. I can throw emotion into either argument to motivate the bulk of the people who are motivated by emotion (emotion equates to motivation, which is why those promoting change, action, etc. play to emotion).

The point is, I wonder if that reflects strategic confusion, or simply a reflection of strategic reality where there are no absolute right or wrong answers, only educated and non-educated opinions. We have four enduring national interests, and you can logically argue we should be involved in most conflicts by making links to them. Ultimately we need to accept that democracy is messy, and emotion is part and parcel of the package. Acting on emotion can result in stupid decisions, but failing to act on emotion in other cases (for example, preventing mass atrocities) can be devalue what we claim to stand for as a nation. I think our national identity is in our national interests, but understandably many disagree.

Enduring interests (regardless of political party in power)

1. Protect the U.S. and U.S. persons. (security)

2. Economic interests (prosperity)

3. International order that promotes our interests

4. Values (human rights, democracy, etc.)

The list Bill has provided above goes to my point. Not only does the NSS list these as our vital interests, it declares them to be "enduring." Certainly these things are important, the list has become so broad and vague as to strip it of much value, and worse, to validate virtually any situation, any place, any time as being "in our interests" to employ military power to shape in some way. T\

The result of everything being validated as being in our interest, is that we ultimately make decisions to act more often than not based on emotion.

One of the better works on interests was the Harvard study published in 1996.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/..._interests.pdf

The timing of that study is critical. We were well into an era of post-Cold War floundering, but were not yet into a period of post-9/11 floundering. The sense was that we had lost our focus as a nation on what was truly important, so this very qualified team took on the task of identifying what a proper focus should be.

Not only did the commission focus on what was important, they then prioritized those interests into four levels of importance. Many on this site have probably seen this document at some point, but given the list Bill provided above, it is worth showing the truly vital interests developed by this this commission:

U.S. vital national interests are to:
1) Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical
(NBC) weapons attacks on the United States.
2) Prevent the emergence of a hostile hegemon in Europe or Asia.
3) Prevent the emergence of a hostile major power on U.S. borders or in
control of the seas.
4) Prevent the catastrophic collapse of major global systems: trade, financial
markets, supplies of energy, and environmental.
5) Ensure the survival of U.S. allies.


This provides a pragmatic focus sorely lacking in the much more ideological and emotional list of today. One can see they are similar, but that they are different in very important ways. Protecting US persons in the US and preserving the right of the US to continue to have the form of government and values for ourselves that we desire is crucial. Protecting every American everywhere and promoting American positions on values and governance for others is not.

Ensuring survival of critical allies is vital, working to shape the governance of those allies through UW or COIN is to put our desires between the those of the populations and governments of those countries and probably none of our business. If we would not intervene in their legal politics, we should not intervene in their illegal politics. Illegal politics usually occur when no effective legal means exist. In other words, they serve a critical purpose, one that is clearly recognized in our own declaration of independence.

Equally important, not everyone we partner with is an ally. We cast far too broad of a net of responsibility when we promise to protect too much. It simply isn't in our interest.

[Bob's World]

North Africa is going through another political revolution, and that will take time to sort out. It won't be settled until the extremists are purged.

I respect the hell out of Bill Moore, and we see many things in very similar ways, but this quote above highlights a fundamental difference in perspective. Our policies of the past several years are more in line with how Bill sees this as stated above, I, on the other hand do not believe that "extremists" cause political revolution, rather that political revolution is caused by certain conditions of governance coupled with the denial of adequate legal means for the aggrieved population to express and address their concerns legally.

There will always be those who take extreme positions far outside the mainstream of the societies they live within, and even when effective legal means exist, these small minorities will at times act out in extreme ways. But that is not what we are dealing with in Africa and the greater Middle East.

We would be far better served by a policy that focuses on helping to solve governance issues rather than to defeat extremism. And by help solve, I mean as much more of a mediator than an arbitrator, and being willing to step back entirely when we have done what we can within the realm of what is perceived as appropriate by those affected and simply let them sort it out. Governments of allies like Saudi Arabia or Turkey might fall to internal illegal politics, as occurred in Egypt. But Insurgency does not destroy a nation, it simply puts it under new management. We should not manipulate legal changes of government to suit what we think is best for us, nor should we manipulate illegal changes of government. We are better served assuming a bit of risk in that change, and being more open to working with new leadership as it emerges.

There are a lot of systems out there that are completely out of balance and in dire need of change. Our very efforts to protect the status quo of those systems is what is empowering extremists to emerge as the leaders of change. We have surrendered the high ground to the lowlifes. That wasn't very smart. How can we be de oppresso liber when we are more often dedicated to the preservation of the oppressor? That bothers me.

[OUTLAW 09]

I respect the hell out of Bill Moore, and we see many things in very similar ways, but this quote above highlights a fundamental difference in perspective. Our policies of the past several years are more in line with how Bill sees this as stated above, I, on the other hand do not believe that "extremists" cause political revolution, rather that political revolution is caused by certain conditions of governance coupled with the denial of adequate legal means for the aggrieved population to express and address their concerns legally.

There will always be those who take extreme positions far outside the mainstream of the societies they live within, and even when effective legal means exist, these small minorities will at times act out in extreme ways. But that is not what we are dealing with in Africa and the greater Middle East.

We would be far better served by a policy that focuses on helping to solve governance issues rather than to defeat extremism. And by help solve, I mean as much more of a mediator than an arbitrator, and being willing to step back entirely when we have done what we can within the realm of what is perceived as appropriate by those affected and simply let them sort it out. Governments of allies like Saudi Arabia or Turkey might fall to internal illegal politics, as occurred in Egypt. But Insurgency does not destroy a nation, it simply puts it under new management. We should not manipulate legal changes of government to suit what we think is best for us, nor should we manipulate illegal changes of government. We are better served assuming a bit of risk in that change, and being more open to working with new leadership as it emerges.

There are a lot of systems out there that are completely out of balance and in dire need of change. Our very efforts to protect the status quo of those systems is what is empowering extremists to emerge as the leaders of change. We have surrendered the high ground to the lowlifes. That wasn't very smart. How can we be de oppresso liber when we are more often dedicated to the preservation of the oppressor? That bothers me.

Robert---you always bring up interesting comments---what bothers me is the simple fact that while we are running around trying to defend and or change population environments we fail to fully understand just why say a young Turkish German dual citizen would suddenly at say the age 19-21 suddenly discover "Islam" and head to Syria and or Iraq?

What is the radicalization process/how and what are the drivers and what about dealing with those that have returned and who no longer wants to fight?

I have often said here the IS runs one of the finest info war campaigns against the West as does Russia on their side of the Ukraine events.

But where is the US---all we think about is tactical field efforts but never the long term hearts and minds via info war.

Maybe in fact Sun Tsu had it right---or is info warfare "something we simply are not up to"---and I do not mean the PR defense contractor we paid for in Iraq and that did nothing but PR releases.

For 25% of all the costs currently in Iraq and Syria that the military is racking up one could establish a world class information war campaign that in fact would dent the IS in far more ways than simply via the tactical method simply addressing the Muslim populations in Muslim terms on why the IS is not Muslim and is in fact a fascist organization using religion as the argument.

Easy to do if one really understands Islam.

[Bob's World]

I personally believe that "radicalization" and "foreign fighters" are two of the most overblown and misunderstood aspects of the current political violence going on across the greater middle east.

People join fighting organizations, legal or non-legal, for all manner of reasons. And people go off to get involved in the fights of others , legal or non-legal, for all manner of reasons as well.

This does not cause these conflicts. We need to worry less about naturally occurring side effects of the tremendous political friction in the world. The US, as an outsider to all this, should focus on how we can help reduce the friction. Instead we fan the flames and attack the smoke.

This also leads us to see what are fundamentally issues of internal governance as some sort of warfare to employ our military power against. The military can help create time and space for civil leaders to get the stuff all in one sack, and the military can help civil security forces mitigate the high end of violence - but there is no enemy that we can defeat and make this all go away. History simply does not support that concept, though historically this is how governments almost always respond.

So, we are in good company, but we will almost certainly achieve the same bad results.

[davidbfpo]

A different theme from recent posts. Spioenkop blog has produced a list of captured and still in use Daesh (ISIS) equipment:

This list only includes captured vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment captured and destroyed by the Islamic State may be higher than recorded here. Some civilian vehicles such as Toyota Hilux pickup trucks are not included in this list. A great deal of effort has been put into avoiding double listings.

Link:http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-captured.html

[OUTLAW 09]

I personally believe that "radicalization" and "foreign fighters" are two of the most overblown and misunderstood aspects of the current political violence going on across the greater middle east.

People join fighting organizations, legal or non-legal, for all manner of reasons. And people go off to get involved in the fights of others , legal or non-legal, for all manner of reasons as well.

This does not cause these conflicts. We need to worry less about naturally occurring side effects of the tremendous political friction in the world. The US, as an outsider to all this, should focus on how we can help reduce the friction. Instead we fan the flames and attack the smoke.

This also leads us to see what are fundamentally issues of internal governance as some sort of warfare to employ our military power against. The military can help create time and space for civil leaders to get the stuff all in one sack, and the military can help civil security forces mitigate the high end of violence - but there is no enemy that we can defeat and make this all go away. History simply does not support that concept, though historically this is how governments almost always respond.

So, we are in good company, but we will almost certainly achieve the same bad results.

Robert---would normally agree with you but alone in Europe mainly France/Germany and the UK there have been over 2000 "fighters" depart for the ME and out of the 400 estimated here out of Germany 170 have returned.

If you were in the courtroom in the case of one recent returnee the German court had no earthly idea what to even ask him and or the common terms used by the jihadi "scene". I was stunned by the total lack of understanding on the problem.

Radicalization is a correct term---this individual as did the others left as you indicated for a multiple number of reasons many having to do with the lack of them feeling a part of the German society ie the failure of their integration into the society--which is unusual as they are the first generation completely growing up inside the German society.

The IS info war provides them a world vision where they are in fact "someone" and what is striking in many of their own comments--they have little to no concrete understanding of Islam, the Koran, and or the Hadith's---all they see and or hear via the internet is the IS messaging which appeals to this younger generation---free the opposed but in their own language---come be a fighter and prove yourself, come be someone, come back with pride and respect and it goes on and on.

There are many German Turkish Muslims trying to deflect that flow but get little or no support from the German government or from anyone else for that matter and mainly do it themselves to keep the younger generation from getting themselves killed.

It is extremely important to understand just how this info war messaging triggers their decisions--we are seeing the exact same thing in the Russian info war messaging and that Russian messaging is even driving decisions by "normal European politicians" where one would say they should understand the messaging but it appeals to them along the same lines as the IS messaging does.

What struck me in this particular court case was I had seen the same exact type of individual in my many Iraqi detainee interviews and yet we showed no interest in their internal drivers--once one understood those drivers it was actually easy to get conversations flowing and reach a rapport level that previously was not possible.

And we in the west greatly and totally underestimate this quality of info warfare. With absolutely no push back by western countries--

Right after the recent 25 page al Baghdadi statement release approx. 120 Islamic theorists and legal theorists some even Whabbi's condemned his statements and basically stated he had no idea of what he was talking about---even the al Nursah group in Syria openly questioned IS for their killing of the American who had recently converted to Islam.

But instead of increasing that pressure from within we remained silent.

A recent quote:

Al-Qaeda: 'ISIS Goes Too Far'." Ah the Middle East, where al-Qaeda is the voice of moderation.

[slapout9]

Then somebody explain to me the one constant and common denominator is always the desire to impose Sharia Law or some other from of radical Islam or more accurately "Communism with a God". Seems to me "rational interest" have little if anything to do with the whole mess but the imposition of an Ideology is everything?

Re-read "On the nature of Revolution: The Marxist Theory of Social Change"
by Herbert Aptheker.

[Bob's World]

We could have nipped much of this in the bud early if we would have understood the problem from beginning in terms of fundamental human nature and governance.

AQ had and has a three point platform, paraphrased free of Islamist jargon it is:
Too much Western influence over the Middle East;
Too many existing regimes are too in bed with and corrupted by that Western Influence;
Need to rally together and form a unified system similar to the EU or ASEAN if we are to compete.

What part of that is counter to US interests??? We should have co-opted the heart of this message immediately, leaving bin Laden with nothing left but a bag full of crazy and a handful of followers.

We blew it. It is not too late, but we continue to blow it when we say we want to defeat ISIL and restore Iraq as it was. Be against ISIL, but we must outcompete organizations like ISIL as a source of support for a Sunni Arab population that has very reasonable concerns about remaining under Shia dominated governance.

As to Europe, they need to clean up their own act. Europe is changing, but when minorities perceive themselves to be treated unfairly they will act out. That is how they feel, and that is how they are acting. The problem is not that they went to Iraq in support of the Sunni cause, the problem is that when they return home things are still F'd up.

Governments do not need to give people what they want, they need to work to give people what they need. This includes the US that has slid into a mindset of excessive government programs that simply give things to people. You can't bribe your way out of trouble, which the Saudis will probably learn soon enough. Small changes that go to justice, dignity, popular legitimacy, empowerment, and popular sovereignty are the key.

A couple of small tweaks of policy along those lines and the US would be Canada. If the King would have been a true visionary and moved the capital from London to New York Britain would still rule the world. But that is another thread altogether...don't want to get David too excited.

[Bill Moore]

Bob,

I don't think there is as much daylight between us as you think.

Our policies of the past several years are more in line with how Bill sees this as stated above, I, on the other hand do not believe that "extremists" cause political revolution, rather that political revolution is caused by certain conditions of governance coupled with the denial of adequate legal means for the aggrieved population to express and address their concerns legally.

Extremist is a loaded term, but until we develop a more nuanced lexicon it will have to do. I agree the people have a right to revolt to remove oppressive governments, and as anyone who has deployed into a combat zone or has studied history knows, these revolts can be quite ugly. Despite our government's desire for adversaries to fight cleanly, that will never happen. Terror is part and parcel of war, and arguing that the use of the atom bomb on Japan, or firebombing both Japan and Germany wasn't a form of terror is living in a state of denial.

On the other hand, those I'm calling extremists (the Islamists) won't stop applying terror after the government falls, they'll act more like the Khmer Rouge and kill everyone who doesn't conform to their views. That is not a representative government that represents the masses (and I'm not necessarily talking democracy), it is just another oppressive government that will likely be worse than the one tossed out. We have to recognize the reality, and not confuse these movements as great patriots attempting to toss an oppressive government out to free the people. As you have stated, they exploit the existing bad governance to pursue their ends.

Next point, we can't wish away that some of these groups have a stated ambition of attacking the West. That obviously means something, and according to the Harvard study you sent, that fell under the red chip priorities. Of course this was written prior to 9/11, so they may recognize that now as a blue chip priority. There are obviously different levels of threats within the broad concept of terrorism, so we have to make some assumptions of what ones are critical and which ones are minor.

Then there is the concept of thinking over time and getting to the left of the problem if it is possible. The study lists the catastrophic collapse of global systems, which is unlikely to collapse due to one event we need to pre-empt, instead it will collapse over time due to slow rot due to transnational crime, terrorism, and other threats to the world order that more significant than we give them credit for. This has only recently been recognized as a significant threat to global and U.S. security, and it requires more action than we're giving it now. It certainly doesn't require large scale stability operations, but it is a bigger problem than law enforcement. How we assess risk and critical interests is probably out dated, and still based on a Cold War model existential threat. That still exists, and the threat is still Russia, but there are certainly other threats that could be an existential threat to our way of life.

I don't believe in a natural order, but some orders are more durable than others. Still at the end of the day, somebody/somebodies make the rules that we live by locally, regionally, and globally. If those rules are important to us, then we need to enforce them. Certainly the existing rules were designed by the West to benefit the West, and will have to be modified.

Not necessarily arguing with your point, just adding there are real threats to our interests that we need to address. Accurately identifying what those threats are with cool headed analysis is required. I do agree we react emotionally now, because emotional arguments are leveraged by politicians in the media to garner political power. We may be coming to a point where we need to toss out our dysfunctional politicians so our nation can move forward into the 21st Century. Frustration levels are high, and while the democratic process works to some extent, it won't work as well as it can unless real problem solvers seek and obtain office, and minimize the power of the old party geezers currently in place. Party interests has come to a point that it trumps national interests, so before we seek to fix the world we need to fix ourselves.