Just over a week into the Trump Administration, the President issued an Executive
Order giving Defense Secretary James Mattis 30 days to come up with a plan
to defeat ISIS. According to the Order, the plan should make recommendations
on military actions, diplomatic actions, partners, strategies, and how to pay
for the operation.
As we approach the president's deadline it looks like the military is going
to present Trump with a plan to do a whole lot more of what we've been doing
and somehow expect different results. Proving the old saying that when all
you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, we are hearing increasing
reports that the military will recommend sending thousands of US troops into
Syria and Iraq.
This would be a significant escalation in both countries, as currently there
are about 5,000 US troops still fighting our 13-year war in Iraq, and some
500 special forces soldiers operating in Syria.
The current Syria ceasefire, brokered without US involvement at the end of
2016, is producing positive results and the opposing groups are talking with
each other under Russian and Iranian sponsorship. Does anyone think sending
thousands of US troops into a situation that is already being resolved without
us is a good idea?
In language reminiscent of his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border,
the president told a political rally in Florida over the weekend that he was
going to set up "safe zones" in Syria and would make the Gulf States pay for
them. There are several problems with this plan.
First, any "safe zone" set up inside Syria, especially if protected by US
troops, would amount to a massive US invasion of the country unless the Assad
government approves them. Does President Trump want to begin his presidency
with an illegal invasion of a sovereign country?
Second, there is the little problem of the Russians, who are partners with
the Assad government in its efforts to rid the country of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is President Trump willing
to risk a military escalation with Russia to protect armed regime-change forces
in Syria?
Third, the Gulf States are the major backers of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria
- as the president's own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview. Unless these safe zones are being set
up to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS safe, it doesn't make any sense to involve the
Gulf States.
Many will say we should not be surprised at these latest moves. As a candidate,
Trump vowed to defeat ISIS once and for all. However, does anyone really believe
that continuing the same strategy we have followed for the past 16 years will
produce different results this time? If what you are hammering is not a nail,
will hammering it harder get it nailed in?
Washington cannot handle the truth: solving the ISIS problem must involve
a whole lot less US activity in the Middle East, not a whole lot more. Until
that is understood, we will continue to waste trillions of dollars and untold
lives in a losing endeavor.
