This memo will focus on the choices of action available to the United States and her allies focused solely on the Islamic State and the conflict it instigates. There are three overall main choices of actions available to the United States government in how it wishes to conduct its involvement against ISIL and the choices and circumstances expand exponentially from each choice: complete alienation of the region, containment of ISIL, and the eradication of ISIL. This paper will outline the moral arguments, economic decisions, social environments, and military questions involving intervention in this crisis in the middle east with the best available information to the public with as limited bias towards the choices and circumstances the government now faces.
The United States has been directly involved with Iraq now for over thirty years, so in light of this it is important to distant the decisions one will make from past involvement and before this brief focuses solely on strategy, it will ask fundamental questions that must be taken with the utmost regard towards policy and its circumstances. These questions mark a viability of action and sacrifice that each decision must be based on. What is America’s long-term objective in the environment that ISIL now operates? How does ISIL effect those long-term objectives? To what extent must ISIL be neutralized in order not to affect these objectives (if they do)? To what extent is the government willing to go to neutralize the threat of ISIL? If America chooses war, what are the American objectives in war vs ISIL? Could a coalition be formed to fight ISIL? Would the US armed forces or allies of forces be able to subdue ISIL effectively? Would the United States government be able to coordinate a long-term strategy to effectively solve this problem?
There are many question outside these factors including length of time to obtain objectives, sacrifice to obtain these objectives, choices of action and so forth that will be discussed to each option available below. As for these questions I cannot speak of the choices the government will and in time must choose, I will just give my most vaid opinion and observations of actions. Each question will be dicussed in detail below.
- What are America’s long-term objectives in the environment that ISIL now operates?
The region ISIL now operates in ranges from the borders of Israel and Turkey to the outskirts of Baghdad. Now I cannot and will not speculate of America’s long-term geopolitical ambitions but I will speak of American commitments in the region. Yet American attitude in the region should be one based on long-term stability in the region in order to expend economic and political possibilities through long-term indirect cooperation. It is the authors belief that longterm direct involvement of American forces, as seen through previous colonial powers, would create long-term hostility towards America and her ideals. Hurting both American power projection and the nations involved themselves. It is further the recommendation to only become involved in the region when a clear Arab or Muslim majority is behind such action.
- How does ISIL effect those long-term objectives?
America since 1949 has had an alliance through NATO with Turkey, the larger ISIL grows the more its eyes will shift to its wealth northern neighbor. War is not the only threat to Turkey, refugees and insurgency on the borders is real concern to the long-term security of an ally.
Yet it is the unspoken commitment that is most troublesome to US foreign policy. America has an unspoken commitment to Israel and Saudi Arabia that is shaken at the moment due to Obama’s policies towards Iran. The added stress caused by the Islamic state, if not adjusted in due time, could cause a break of relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia; which would place the American strategic position in the middle east in a dangerous and friendless position.
If America seeks long-term stability and through that economic and social growth in the region, ISIL is contradictory to all of the American objectives. Not only does ISIL effect the core of the Middle East but create a conduit at home and abroad for radicalism to take shape and expand (we are seeing this point through social media). ISIL is not only a threat in the Middle East but as we’ve seen through recent terrorist attacks a threat to western civilization. A nuclear threat cannot be ruled out on this premise either for as long as a money supply is available to a rogue state they will seek weapons of mass destruction.
- What extent must ISIL be neutralized in order not to affect these objectives (if they do)?
To take the Nuclear threat and terrorist threat ISIL presents to the world seriously the only available option then is the neutralization of that threat and to completely eradicate the Islamic State and to out live and out prove its ideology.
- To what extent is the government willing to go to neutralize the threat of ISIL?
It is speculative to suggest which nominee or even party will win the election of 2016 and therefore shape American policy in the region, yet each candidate proposes either status quo bombings or direct military involvement. Yet whichever candidate or party wins there must be a clear line of long-term policy that is directed by the President, approved by Congress, and supported by the American people. The importance of the greater majority of Congress supporting the need for action is mandatory in order for the populace not to create another Vietnam syndrome. Whatever long-term option is chosen it must be exercised with long-term prudence.
- If America chooses war, what are the American objectives in war vs ISIL?
Objectives against ISIL must be based on the greater objectives for the region, because of this the chief objective must be stability in the area ISIL now controls and the end of Islamic radicalization. These two points go hand in hand but must be carried out with the knowledge that time must be given. ISIL is strongest as a counter-insurgency and that will be how they are perceived, only time will win this fight.
The first objective, stability, must be the key objective for the area ISIL can affect. Coalition and/or American forces must be willing to keep a substantial amount of boots on the ground for at least a five year period to provide normalcy and civilization back to these lands. In detail we will explain the exact plans later but with this objective we must also consider the redrawing of borders to meet the natural landscape of the middle-east.
As stated before since 1920 this action could have been predicted due to the unnatural drawing of borders by the treaty of Sevres. Currently ISIL controls the predominantly Sunni populations of Iraq and Syria that are fighting governments controlled by Shia Muslims therefore this is a sectarian war and must be treated as such. With this knowledge the only way to provide a stable region is to separate these areas and provide efficient local governance not demonized because of a religious difference. In time nature will redress the balances in the region but this would be a good first step to provide a sustainable government supported by the people able to go through the natural civilization process.
The second objective, the end of Islamic radicalization, must be the overall objective in how America sees the Islamic world community. Since 1979 Islamic radicalism by both Sunni and Shia factions have spiked and a root cause towards the massive instability we now face across the entire Middle East. The destruction of Islamic radicalism is the sole purpose of the war on terror and without this accomplishment; ISIL will be a continuing story with different names.
This objective will only be achieved through stringent crackdown worldwide of radical Islamist from Saudi Arabia to Libya. We must offer better education instead of madrassas and an access to worldwide thinking. Social engineering and grants will be needed to provide for a stronger modern society in these nations we face Islamic radicalism. This paper will address this conclusion in more detail later, but the truth is we need to help modernize the middle east into global affairs and radicalism will lose appeal.
These two objectives must be the sole objectives in a war verses ISIL and what it stands for and we must not get bogged down trying to establish democratic rule. Now this statement might be controversial but for the establishment of governments in the regions we must support the local populace right of choice in whichever form of government they wish to take. For if we accomplish the second objective correctly through public works, education, judicial structure at the basic levels, and moderation the rest will come in time.
- Could a coalition be formed to fight ISIL?
It is the recommendation of this paper and many strategic minds that since America is the great military power in the world, that we should never single handily confront an enemy; for if we can’t convince western nations with similar beliefs of the worthiness of our cause then we should reevaluate our intentions. Yet in this situation it is clear the world is in need of a strong global power to take charge of the situation and lead its way for then others will rally, if the United States does not do this it leaves the opportunity of a challenger in world affairs. This is a situation where other nations will not sit idle by, as we’ve seen after the terrorist attacks on France and their intervention. The time for coalition building is upon us and western nations are ready, the question then becomes will Arab leaders join?
It is the opinion of this paper that moderate Islamic leaders will join in the fight if they have a clear way forward by a strong American administration. The need for Arab support is key in achieving the second goal of eradicating Islamic radicalism. If the Arab nations are willing to join a global cooperation led by the US instead of a single US intervention, then the best estimate would lead that they would be willing to crack down on Islamic radicalism at home.
- Would the US armed forces or allies of forces be able to subdue ISIL effectively?
This question can only be answered by each individual nation willing to join a coalition; for the fight against ISIL will be a greater undertaking then the second Gulf War. Militarily there is no doubt that if the Islamic forces faced the coalition or simply American forces that the Islamic forces would lose the confrontation. The risk comes in being able to subdue the Islamic forces over a matter of great time.
For if ISIL simply waited until Coalition forces retook key areas and bid their time of attack then there is reason to believe in a prolonged confrontation that coalition forces would ultimately fail at their objectives due to increasing in casualties and uncertainty at home. Each nation then must ask itself if it is willing to commit a substantial amount of troops over a prolonged amount of time and if so then the odds are in the coalitions favor.
- Would the United States government be able to coordinate a long-term strategy to effectively solve this problem?
Currently the United States government is divided amongst itself in parties and agencies and at this rate cannot adhere to a single policy. If the American government does not correct its fundamental structural problems of long-time strategy planning then America will become unreliable on the world stage. These structural difficulties must be addressed in the State department, the Defense Department, Congress, and even the Presidency. There must be a clear fundamental policy this nation follows over a course of decades to achieve its means. In the Cold War all branches came together to fight a common enemy, well they must again or Terrorist attacks will continue and world instability increase.
Answering these questions as best as a civilian can, these are the fundamental question the United States government must ask itself. A congruent Policy across all departments agreed by the American people is needed to address the increase of world instability and America place in it. This brief outlines a single crisis that has occurred due to a lack of congruent Middle East policy by our government as a whole.
To provide a congruent choice on foreign policy and provide a clear picture of due course is the sole objective of this paper. If we intend to combat the spread of Terrorism then we must make choices. These are the choices the American government has.
Strat-Quantum Theory and Policy 