On September 23, the U.S. military, targeting the Islamic State, initiated aerial strikes on Syrian territory. Saudi Arabia, along with five other Middle Eastern nations, are said to have been involved in the maneuver. F-22 stealth fighters made their combat debut with assistance from carrier-transported F-18s and B-1 bombers, while Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from a fleet deployed off the coast. Targets of the attack included Islamic State group bastions such as Raqqa in northern Syria.
Repeating the Folly of Acting Without a Plan?
Following the airstrikes, U.S. President Barack Obama declared from the White House, “We will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists.” Further, while stating, “this is not America’s fight alone,” Obama emphasized the multilateral nature of the military efforts undertaken by the “coalition of the willing.”
Until this point, President Obama had repeatedly criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the folly of acting without an exit strategy in response to terrorist attacks. Does that mean there’s an exit strategy this time around?
On May 28 of this year, at a graduation ceremony for a U.S. military academy, President Obama delivered an address providing guidelines for future U.S. foreign policy in the international community. While on the one hand claiming, “American isolationism is not an option,” Obama went on to say, “but to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution.“
President Obama, upon pronouncing terrorism as the greatest threat, stated that the conditions for military action include those times “when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger.” He also stated that when the U.S. is not in danger, “we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action” upon consideration of the costs and benefits of action. Let’s see how well the recent air bombing maneuvers are in keeping with these policy guidelines.
Again, President Obama claimed the following requisites for military action:
1. Military intervention is only acceptable in the event of an evident threat to American safety or the protection of its citizens, as a last resort.
2. In the event of military action, upon devising clear strategic goals, end an engagement quickly with the implementation of overwhelming force.
3. Formulate an exit strategy before mobilizing the military.
4. When the threat to the U.S. is unclear, take action collectively with allies and partners.
1-3 are essentially identical to the “Power Doctrine” advocated by Colin Powell during his time as secretary of state: these conditions could be considered the “Obama Version” of the Power Doctrine.
On September 24, President Obama presented an address to the general assembly of the United Nations in which he declared, “The terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed.” The “strategic goal,” clearly, is to “destroy ISIL.” Obama implored the international community for their cooperation and support, saying, “Today, I ask the world” to participate in the coalition of the willing. These actions, along with the mustering of the UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are also perfectly in line with the doctrine.
The problem is that as soon as Obama announced that ground troops would not be dispatched, he also stated that overthrowing the Islamic State group was going to take some time. Despite the decision to conduct aerial strikes, the principle of “ending an engagement quickly with the implementation of overwhelming force” was lost. Can there really be a viable exit plan like this?
After the strikes, Joint Chiefs of Staff Director of Operations William Mayville said, “Last night’s strikes are the beginning of a credible and sustainable persistent campaign,” explaining that there’s a possibility that it will take a number of years to reach strategic goals. Spokesman for the Pentagon Admiral Kirby stressed, “Our initial indication is that these strikes were very successful,” and went on to state that these strikes “were only the beginning.” Over the past few days the war front has been steadily expanding, but without an exit strategy in sight, the New York Times has indicated it as a “dangerous new step.”*
96 Percent Usage Rate of Precision Ballistics
If President Obama — who until now has repeatedly criticized the folly of acting without an exit strategy — thinks he can defeat the Islamic State group with only aerial strikes, he can’t escape being criticized for being militarily tone-deaf.
At a press conference on September 23, Director of Operations William Mayville revealed that 96 percent of explosives used were precision-guided missiles. Compared with the Gulf War at 8 percent, Kosovo at 35 percent, Operation Enduring Freedom (the war in Afghanistan) at 57 percent, and the Iraq War at 68 percent, the relative importance of precision-guided missile use in the current engagement is readily apparent.
By pinpointing a target with precision-guided ballistics, needless destruction, casualties and massacre can be minimized. From the perspective of post-war recovery, it’s better to contain destruction to only that which is absolutely necessary. It is also of paramount importance to minimize civilian casualties (collateral damage). Precision-guided missiles are well suited for this. However, one must be careful not to forget their pitfalls.
It is not well understood that the more precise an attack is, the more precise its target data must be. Where you have a precision-guided weapon with a margin of error of a few meters, you need correspondingly precise information about your target. A precision-guided missile will destroy in almost perfect accordance with the data it is given. In the Kosovo war, a Chinese embassy was bombed by mistake due to an error in data input. When information is incorrectly entered, resulting in an accidental death, it’s known as “targeted friendly fire.”
According to an announcement by the U.S. Department of Defense, the primary strategic targets of the aerial strikes included some 40 bases belonging to the Islamic State group, consisting of training facilities, fuel, arms and ammunition stockpiles, headquarters, and businesses operating as fronts for recruitment. The target data in this case had already been obtained by recon satellite in advance — it was like taking candy from a baby. However, as Admiral Kirby said, this is “only the beginning,” and stamping out the Islamic State group completely is still a long way off. Perhaps it has only increased their hatred.
From here on out, the Islamic State group will naturally seek to conceal its intentions, and will likely start moving frequently in order to frustrate attempts at collecting data. Recon satellites will be useful for collecting strategy data, but will be useless for tactical information. If target data cannot be collected in a timely fashion, precision-guided ballistics will be like wasted talent.
The Iraq War was declared over after 38 days. In “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan, an air base had been captured within three days. However, as operations afterwards descended into a terror/guerrilla engagement, target data on enemy concealment and movement was no longer so easily obtainable. The usefulness of aerial strikes diminished considerably, and the war fell into a state of quagmire.
From now on, in order to execute airstrikes in the engagement with the Islamic State group — which has a good command over concealment and movement tactics — there will be no other option but to rely on human brains and eyes. In the battlefield above all, to collect target data in a timely manner it will be necessary to infiltrate the innermost areas of enemy territory with special operations forces.
In “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan, as if playing at Lawrence of Arabia, special-ops forces infiltrated enemy territory riding horses or camels, disguised as Bedouins.
In the battle at Mazar-i-Sharif, a battle fought alongside a mountain division comprised of daring Afghan cavalry, five special-ops personnel riding camels and horses infiltrated enemy lines deeply enough to be able to distinguish between faces, found the intended target and, by sending the precise target data via laser and GPS to an overhead fighter aircraft, made a successful aerial strike. It was a collaboration between high and low technologies.
Without a Doubt, the Islamic State Group Uses Women and Children as Human Shields
Of the 125,000 personnel deployed to Iraq, about 10,000 were engaged in special-ops work like the above. It is also these units that suffered the most casualties.
This time, President Obama denied the possibility of deploying ground troops from the get-go. But in order to continue aerial strikes, somebody has to be collecting the necessary data. With ambiguous data, the risk of civilian casualties increases.
Just as Hamas has used women and children as “human shields” in battles with Israel, so an organization as cruel as the Islamic State group must certainly do the same. If woman and child casualties were to appear, international opinion would immediately turn against the U.S. The limits of aerial strikes are sure to be reached eventually.
On September 23, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan welcomed the American military leadership’s air strikes, and announced that the Turkish government may furnish the U.S. military with military assistance and logistical support. He explained, “We will give the necessary support to the operation,” and said that this includes political, military and logistical support.
Secretary of State John Kerry said, “it is absolutely fair and appropriate for the world to expect that that region will fight for itself.” While denying that ground troops will be deployed, he noted, “Turkey is ready to conduct additional efforts along with the rest of us in order to guarantee success.” He elaborated that Turkey “will be very engaged on the front-lines of this effort.”
However, there is no chance President Bashar al-Assad will allow Turkey to deploy troops into Syrian territory. That’s without even mentioning that beneath the air strikes of the U.S. military leadership, Turkey would bear the brunt of the casualties.
Deputy Assistant to the President Benjamin Rhodes expressed to a group of reports the expectation that the joint military exercises with respective Arab countries should continue. He noted, “I think it’s very significant that — it’s very unique that you have five Arab countries flying with us, taking direct military action in the Middle East on behalf of our common security,” but stressed that this ideal situation of leaving the dangers of ground invasion up to the Arab countries while the U.S. only conducts air strikes can’t be expected to continue for very long.
Predator drones will probably also make an appearance, with recon and patrolling as their principal duty, attacking enemies when discovered. However, drones don’t have a lot of destructive power, nor are they capable of protecting themselves.
The Islamic State group, as “the world’s richest terrorist organization,” has access to significant resources. Taking into account plunder from banks and oil reserve smuggling, ransom, and personal and industrial fees for business licenses, one high-ranking U.S. state official described their income as amounting to “several million U.S. dollars every month.”
Thanks to the Islamic State group’s deep coffers, it has come into possession of high-powered equipment. Items such as American-style bulletproof vests and night vision goggles are just the beginning: The Islamic State group is in command of air defense systems and anti-tank missiles, as well. The possibility of drones — with essentially no capability for self-defense — being neutralized is high.
A Naïve Forecast Invites a Painful Retaliation
In an interview with an American magazine in January of this year, President Obama referred to the Islamic State group, among a variety of extremist Islamist organizations, as a “jayvee team.” It seems his sense for the state of things was a tad optimistic. With naïve outlooks like this, by staging a military intervention without an exit strategy, he’s going to drown himself in horrific retaliations.
America, already exhausted from a long war on terror, is currently trying to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. At a time like this, surely injecting ground troops into Iraq and Syria is not an option.
If that’s the case, the recent decision to initiate air strikes was an excessively rash and half-baked plan. The worst possible scenario for the Middle East would be for the U.S. to abruptly walk away. With the elimination of a U.S. presence in the Middle East, the chaos there would spread throughout the world.
Without the proper information it is impossible to take down the Islamic State group with aerial strikes alone. The tides will simply turn back in the Islamic State group’s favor if the U.S. refuses to go deeper after completing the first phase of striking the Islamic State group’s Syrian command, control and supply bases. It would be better to shift policy towards a weakening strategy, by calling on the international community, severing resources and supply lines, cutting off weapon supply routes, and isolating the Islamic State group. At the same time as confining terrorists attempting to flee, various countries should implement strict border control in order to prevent terrorist influx.
The U.S. cannot be allowed to fall into a quagmire due to dragging its feet and continuing with airstrikes that yield no results. However, the U.S. also can’t run from work it has already begun. It’s not too late. It’s time to formulate an exit strategy.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.