Hillary Clinton's Plan to Defeat ISIS

Dear Friends,

After Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations about how to defeat ISIS, I googled to see what she had to say.  Among the hits were these two headlines:

From Politicususa (here): "Hillary Clinton Rejects New Middle East Ground War By Opposing Sending US Troops To Syria"

From The Guardian (here): "Hillary Clinton calls for more ground troops as part of hawkish Isis strategy"

Last night Chris Hayes, on his show All in with Chris Hayes also made what I consider to be a contradictory statement about her position.  He stated her position was "... rejecting calls for expanded use of ground troops in the Middle East, Clinton urged a new phase in the fight against ISIS, including more special operations forces..."

It was clear to me that I needed to read the transcript of her speech, if I were to understand what her plan was.  She did in fact say

Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities.

I completely agree with her on this point, and I assume that is the paragraph that lead commentators to say that she was rejecting additional ground troops.

She also said,

To support them [Syrians whom we support who are taking on ISIS], we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.

This sentence is probably the reason why The Guardian headline said she called for more ground troops and why Chris Hayes said she called for more special operations forces.

Certainly not all ground forces are special operations forces but all special operations forces are in fact ground forces.  My view of what she said is that she rejects large numbers of ground troops but will increase the number of ground troops.  She also argued for more direct involvement of the ground forces that are already authorized to be in the area.

As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

There can be no doubt that if our "advisors" are embedded with the Iraqi troops, that they will be much more in harms way, and we will be forced to protect them which will lead to an even greater escalation.  We should remember how we started in Vietnam.

Secretary Clinton's plan is more aggressive than President Obama's plan, particularly with respect to more ground troops, embedding troops and a no-fly zone. While I disagree with those positions, she makes some very good points about the need for the people of the region to overcome their differences and fight ISIS as a common enemy and the need for more and better intelligence.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners. And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

And once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization.

I particularly applaud her for calling out the Turks, Saudis and Qataris.  It is well past time for leaders in the United States to tell the truth about what some of our so-called allies are doing.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Saudi Arabia

Dear Friends,

I have been troubled for a long time about the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.  Despite the reality of their human rights abuses and support of terrorists and terrorism, the United States maintains a very close relationship with Saudi Arabia and portrays the Saudi government as moderate.  The official policy of the United States government towards Saudi Arabia  for decades seems to be that the Saudis can do whatever they want as long as they keep selling us oil.

Human Rights Watch's 2015 World Report on Saudi Arabia (here) starts with this summary paragraph.

Saudi Arabia continued in 2014 to try, convict, and imprison political dissidents and human rights activists solely on account of their peaceful activities. Systematic discrimination against women and religious minorities continued. Authorities failed to enact systematic measures to protect the rights of 9 million foreign workers. As in past years, authorities subjected hundreds of people to unfair trials and arbitrary detention. New anti-terrorism regulations that took effect in 2014 can be used to criminalize almost any form of peaceful criticism of the authorities as terrorism.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.  Saudi royal family members were allowed to leave the United States during the no fly period after the attacks.  If you have the time, there is a fascinating article in Vanity Fair entitled "Saving the Saudis" (here) that details the flight of the Saudis and the continued attempts by the United States government to deny that they happened.  This paragraph summarizes my underlying concern.

The bin Laden family neatly exemplifies the dilemma the United States faces in its relations with Saudi Arabia. On the one hand, the bin Ladens are products of Wahhabi fundamentalism, a puritanical Islamic sect that has helped make Saudi Arabia a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. Contrary to popular belief, Osama was not the only member of the immense bin Laden family—there are more than 50 siblings—with ties to militant Islamic fundamentalists. As early as 1979, Mahrous bin Laden, an older half-brother of Osama’s, had befriended members of the militant Muslim Brotherhood and had played, perhaps unwittingly, a key role in the Mecca Affair, a violent uprising against the House of Saud in 1979 which resulted in more than 100 deaths.

A Frontline report "analysis wahhabism" (here) starts with this paragraph.

For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California.

The funding of the madrassas is made possible by the United States oil consumption and the willingness of the United States government to ignore the Saudi human rights record and support for terrorists worldwide.

King Salman the new Saudi king is no reformer.  While his predecessor King Abdullah was seen by some as a reformer, he made little progress and King Salman is seen as more closely tied to religious conservatives.  My fears about the direction that Saudi Arabia is heading and the unholy alliance that the United States has with Saudi Arabia were confirmed and fueled by a recent article in The New York Times about Prince Mohammed bin Salman (here).

Prince Mohammed is 29 years old and the King's son with the King's third wife.  King Salman is giving him huge amounts of power and control.  The Prince seems to be a major force behind Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen.  Prince Mohammed has been educated only in Saudi Arabia which I believe gives him a very limited view of the world and one that is tainted by Wahhabism.  The following quote from The New York Times article gives me great concern about his world view.

Prince Mohammed seemed to be planning for a future in government from an early age, said one family associate who knew him well. Unlike many other Saudi princes of his generation, Prince Mohammed never smoked, drank alcohol or stayed out late. “It was obvious to me that he was planning his future — he was always very concerned about his image,” the family associate said.

President Obama is, of course, following the well established United States government line in this quote from the same article.

After meeting with both princes at a summit meeting of gulf nations at Camp David last month, President Obama said the younger Prince Mohammed “struck us as extremely knowledgeable, very smart.”
“I think wise beyond his years,” Mr. Obama added in an interview with the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya network.

The last line of the article gave a much better assessment of the situation.

Abu Fahad, a businessman sipping coffee in a luxury hotel, said, “He has become Mr. Knows Everything. But he is 29 years old — what does he know?”

As long as we continue to support the Saudi regime because of our desire for its oil, the Saudis will continue to support Wahhabism which will produce young Saudis who are hateful and are taught that if one does not practice their form of Islam they must die.  We are not only destroying the planet, we are creating terrorists in the process.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal