Janine Davidson

Defense in Depth

Janine Davidson examines the art, politics, and business of American military power.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


As Mission Against ISIS Widens, Three Points to Guide U.S. Operations

by Janine Davidson
August 26, 2014

A U.S. F/A-18A+ Hornet prepares to launch off the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) in the Gulf south of Iraq in this photo released March 6, 2005. The same aircraft has been employed with increasing frequency in operations against the Islamic State, begun August 7, 2014. (Airman Ryan O'Connor/Courtesy Reuters)


Last night, President Obama authorized both manned and unmanned surveillance flights over Syria as a potential precursor to air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS). This action suggests that U.S. policymakers have come to the conclusion that the border between Iraq and Syria will no longer be a barrier to U.S. operations.

As the United States contemplates its next steps and longer-term strategy, here are three points to bear in mind:

1. ISIS is a savvy, quasi-state enemy. The rapid expansion and evolution of ISIS has challenged Western paradigms: both our conventional understanding of “warfare” and the way we conceive of “states.” In order to effectively combat ISIS, the United States must be equally adaptive, appreciating that ISIS defies many of the labels by which threats have traditionally been defined.

What does this mean in a practical sense? For a start, since Assad has demonstrated he is unable to govern and keep the peace within Syria, the United States need not validate the regime’s legitimacy by acknowledging Assad’s threat that, “Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression.” In the longer term, U.S. policymakers should also explore ways to check ISIS’s immensely successful propaganda machine, which, as Emerson Brooking recently detailed, has become a significant strategic asset to the organization.

2. There’s a difference between stopping and ending the Islamic State. As the articulated goals of U.S. operations have evolved from protecting U.S. personnel and preventing an imminent genocide to potentially halting and even reversing ISIS’s momentum, calls of “mission creep” have grown.  But adapting one’s strategy to a rapidly growing threat  is not always “mission creep.” In the face of clear aggression, it is simply national defense.

That said, overreacting is as much a threat as not acting at all.  Developing a long term political and military strategy that builds on short-term operational gains, brings regional and international leaders into the effort, and relies on local troops more than American boots on the ground will be critical.

In the short term, air strikes in coordination with Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces have proven very effective against ISIS’s massed forces advancing through the open desert. Going forward, such strikes will be less useful against ground forces operating in densely populated areas, as much of ISIS leadership now is in places like its headquarters city of Raqqa, Syria. As Aaron Miller writes, “[ISIS] is now ensconced in its host Syrian environment like a barnacle attached to the side of a boat.”

Actually defeating ISIS will be the work of years, not weeks or months. It will require strong support to Kurdish forces and political conciliation in the new Iraqi government. It will also require undermining ISIS recruitment by appealing to moderate Islamic groups, and ultimately, finding a tenable solution to the so far intractable problem of the Syrian Civil War. None of this will happen in the short term.  President Obama’s repeated message that this will take time indicates that the administration recognizes the need to craft a realistic long-term, multi-element strategy.

3. The threat to the United States shouldn’t be understated—but it shouldn’t be sensationalized, either. To be clear, the ISIS “army” is not capable of invading the United States or launching a conventional war against the U.S. homeland.  It is not an existential threat.

Still, although the FBI states that ISIS does not present an immediate credible threat against the United States, there is no doubt that the terrorist quasi-state, who has threatened to “drown all of you [Americans] in blood”  has the means and the stated ambition to attack.  Recall that the United States dismissed overt declarations of war by Osama bin Laden during the 1990s – after all, how could a non-state organization led by a “cranky guy in a cave” declare war?

ISIS, in contrast has far more resources than al Qaeda had in 2001. Moreover, as the Center for a New American Security concludes in a new policy brief, the 3,000 radicalized Westerners currently fighting for ISIS constitute a clear threat should they decide to bring their fight home.

Understanding and mitigating this danger to the homeland will require a delicate balance between preserving civil liberties and homeland security. This in turn requires an open and honest conversation with the American people.

For more discussion on the U.S. short and long term options against the Islamic State, see my recent appearance on Defense News TV, along with Kathleen Hicks, Jim Thomas, and Joel Rayburn:

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by Bill Webb

    Will Russia be content to let IS destroy their ally, or are they just hoping that the US will likely step in and start air strikes there in an overall campaign to deter them from “drowning us all in blood” as they have threatened. I’m sure rampaging through the lawless deserts of the ME will give them great confidence until they run into the big boys with big toys.

  • Posted by Writt Woodson

    Ms. Davidson is correct, “…the ISIS ‘army’ is not capable of invading the United States…,” but there are three important considerations. One is the threat of terrorist attacks on the homeland, secondly the threat of terrorist attacks on Americans and American facilities abroad and lastly the future of the territory now controlled by ISIS. The first two circumstances, particularly the second, present an aspect of immediacy to the situation. —

    The style and manner of James Foley’s execution tipped the balance such that ISIS is an enemy of and threat to the US.
    Saddam Hussein was one of the most widely recognized men who ever lived and it took eight months to find him. The only thing certain about al Baghdadi is that his name is not al Baghdadi. Just pushing the ISIS leadership underground would constitute progress. —
    As Davidson indicates the effort should rely “on local troops more than American boots.” The two million barrel a day question is what troops? Can the so called Iraqi army kill a ladybug? Won’t sending the renamed Mahdi army through the Sunni Triangle create the worst mess yet? Why can’t some political accommodation be afforded to so called Sunni tribal leaders, even if, some of them are former Ba’athists? They helped ISIS throw the Iraqi government/army out of Mosul and Tikrit. They are not even asking the US for weapons. They just don’t want to be dominated by Shiites.

  • Posted by Matt

    The problem has been unity in Europe to act against regimes like Assad. Not our problem, well these refugees and IDP’s that become refugees. In Jordan, Lebanon will move and soon the Italians, Greeks and Spanish are going to have let them go north due to overcrowding and lack of resources.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required