Critics such as
Sen. John McCain and former head
of the Central Intelligence
Agency Leon Panetta argue that
political leaders gave away
gains made by the military
because of their lack of
political will. But U.S. Army
Gen. Daniel P. Bolger points
out that the U.S. was
defeated both politically and
militarily; it was forced out of
Iraq.
Now Barack Obama’s
administration is trying to win
a new war in Iraq with even less
support at home and armed
resources than in 2003.
Roadblocks
The United States
faces massive roadblocks in its
quest for victory against ISIL.
American diplomats admitted to
me that U.S. cannot win with air
power alone. Yet the U.S. has no
allies even capable of fighting
on the ground to defeat ISIL,
much less occupying and
governing the areas currently
under its control in Syria and
Iraq.
The Iraqi army collapsed in the
face of the ISIL offensive last
summer. In response, the Iraqi
government has mobilized
conservative Shia militias and
deployed them at the front. On
at least one occasion when these
militias retook ISIL-held
territory, they prohibited
Sunnis from returning to their
homes — what some critics called
ethnic cleansing. Sunnis
still perceive the Iraqi army
and allied militias as sectarian
forces dominated by Shia
leaders.
In Syria the
prospects for a victory favoring
the U.S. are even more remote.
The U.S.-backed civilian group
the Syrian National Coalition
has little popular support. The
Pentagon has stopped supporting
the Free Syrian Army, the
so-called
moderate force backed by the
U.S. for three years. The Free
Syrian Army — not very popular
in its own right — wants to
focus on defeating Bashar
al-Assad’s regime, while the
United States demands that
rebels fight ISIL first.
Now the Obama
administration has a new scheme.
The U.S. claims it will vet
moderate rebels, send them to
Saudi Arabia for training for
one year and then return them to
Syria. But even Vice President
Joe Biden admitted that the
Saudis helped
fund and arm extremist rebels
for years. The administration
has offered nothing but token
assurances that the Saudis have
changed their practices.
More spending
Without viable
allies on the ground, the Obama
administration has few options
for winning the war against ISIL.
Hawks at home will pressure him
to send additional troops, but
there is no evidence that even
thousands of more soldiers would
succeed. ISIL has already
adapted its tactics to fight an
unconventional war, hiding among
the civilian population.
The $1.1 trillion
omnibus spending bill passed
this month authorized $64
billion for the wars in
Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and
other countries. Obama has asked
Congress to authorize the wars
in Iraq and Syria. Last week the
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee agreed, and a final
Senate vote is expected early
next year.
Regardless of
what action is taken in
Washington, the American people
will not back another unending
war. As happened with the 2003
Iraq War, public opinion will
shift against Iraq War III as
the cost of war increases, U.S.
soldiers are killed and military
victories remain sparse. After
years of lies and senseless
military conflict, firm and
decisive opposition to war is
the only way forward to a more
decent future.
Reese
Erlich is a freelance foreign
correspondent and the author of
“Inside
Syria: The Back Story of Their
Civil War and What the World Can
Expect,” with a foreword by
Noam Chomsky.
