Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumMeasure Clinton’s Plan for ISIS Against the Lessons of Iraq
Last week, Hillary Clinton became the first of the 2016 presidential hopefuls to articulate an approach to fighting ISIS in enough substance and detail to merit serious analysis. Unfortunately, most of the subsequent commentary has focused on the wrong question (How different is this strategy from the one we are currently pursuing?). In military circles, there is a semi-facetious expression about the two kinds of strategy: the ones that might work and those that definitely wont. What serious observers should be debating is which of the two types Secretary Clinton has put forward.
There is no crystal ball that can reliably predict the effectiveness of a proposed strategy. What can be useful, though, is assessing its merits using the lessons from and principles that guided an earlier, similar effort.
It is generally acknowledged that in the final stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Gen. Stanley McChrystal led a successful counterterrorism operation against Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). When he speaks publicly about that fight, McChrystal focuses on four key principles. First, he says, a successful counterterrorist effort demands a broad, multifunctional, interconnected group of players and agencies a network to defeat a network. Second, he notes that a strategy that relies on eliminating the leaders of terrorist organizations may bring near-term gains but is doomed to fail in the long run. Experience shows that leaders who are eliminated will be replaced. Incapacitating a terrorist group requires striking at more fundamental parts of the organization. Which leads to the third lesson: getting after the people who get things done. Perhaps more critical to a decentralized terrorist group than its leaders are the members who keep the ranks of the front-line fighters and operatives full, provide them with supplies, make sure they are well-financed, and the like. As opposed to a strategy based on decapitation, attacking and destroying their support base through a wide variety of means is more crippling to a terrorist group and has a more lasting effect. Finally, and most fundamentally, McChrystal notes that it is essential to attack the ideas that make a terrorist group attractive to those who might want to join it. In the end, undermining the appeal of an ideology that justifies terrorism is critical to defeating an organization built on an ideological foundation.
How does Secretary Clintons announced strategy to fight ISIS stand up in light of these lessons?
In sum, pretty well. The key points of her presentation and other comments she has made about the fight against radical jihadism track very nicely with General McChrystals advice and cautions. Her approach is fundamentally based on the notion that it takes a network to fight a network. The call for a continued effort to be more inclusive to strengthen and broaden the coalitionmore international partners, additional support from U.S. and other agencies especially in the realm of intelligence, and mechanisms to better coordinate and integrate the contributions of the players in such a networkmirrors exactly the successful techniques honed by McChrystal and JSOC as part of their counterterrorism operations in the latter half of last decade.
In her remarks, Secretary Clinton puts forth specific and concrete proposals to undermine these contentions. She proposes a more robust effort to protect people who are suffering from the effects of this warboth intended and unintendedregardless of nationality, religion, or sect. And her strategy proposes measures that are designed to give new leverage to diplomatic efforts that will be informed by previous successful efforts that have brought seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars to an end.
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/11/measure-clintons-plan-isis-against-lessons-iraq/124017/?oref=d-river
msrizzo
(796 posts)Good read.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)experience or heart!