What Obama’s Great Battle Plan Ignores

President Obama wants to engage in a war without actually fighting it. Politically, that’s entirely feasible and would allow him to avoid the pitfalls that tripped up his predecessor. But whether it can be done is more than doubtful.

But he has no other option: containing the Islamic State is no longer enough. Public pressure on the United States is so great that he must act. At the same time, he knows that his strategy can only take off if he applies great skill and if he is lucky. Barack Obama has a plan. Now, if only reality will stick to it as well.

Four Strategic Elements

The American approach is to reconstitute Iraq as a unified and stable nation that can provide for its own security within its borders. The terrorist threat has to be eliminated. In order to first weaken the Islamic State and then destroy it, the president will have to juggle four separate items simultaneously and have them succeed:

1. The technological superiority of the U.S. military will be used to target and take out the Islamic State leadership cadre and key combatants. That is being done now and will be intensified.

2. The parallel ground war to protect the “liberated areas” will be carried out by the Iraqi military and Syrian troops who will be trained and equipped by the United States.

3. A powerful multinational alliance will be formed to isolate the Islamic State and to pay a major portion of the costs incurred. A NATO nucleus is already involved and states near Iraq will be included.

4. Finally, those affected will be supported with humanitarian assistance.

What This War Isn’t

The United States therewith declares itself to be in the leadership position in the battle against the Islamic State. In contrast to the Libyan operation where Obama preferred to lead from behind, the U.S. this time will stand at the head of the anti-Islamic State alliance. In order to avoid sharing George W. Bush’s fate, Obama categorically disavows using U.S. ground forces for this war. Even if Obama wants to equate the Iraq operation with the targeted attacks in Yemen and Somalia, Iraq will be far more intensive. Obama wants to connect a remote American anti-terrorism unit with an insurgency by local forces. Conceptually, these are achievable objectives made from experiences in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Serious Questions Remain Unanswered

What appears politically conceptual may take a great deal of time to achieve. The anti-Islamic State alliance must first be built and then coordinated. Troops available locally have to first be trained and equipped and the Islamic State meanwhile must be prevented from interrupting these processes. These are just three important conditions. Beyond that, other serious questions also remain unanswered.

What happens if the international coalition can’t readily get its act together or even collapses during the hostilities? What happens if the hostilities expand into bordering nations like Saudi Arabia?

What happens if it becomes apparent that urban warfare demands specific capabilities absent in Iraqi organizations but common in U.S. Special Forces? What happens if hostilities escalate and it becomes apparent that the United States was drawn into the hostilities by the powerful propaganda pull of the murder of two of its citizens that then ends up as a trans-national war?

What happens if European nations increasingly become targets of international terrorists?

As soon as the conflict intensifies, more problems will emerge.