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

Refugees

Dear Friends,

The news is full of reports about the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria.  The calls for action are increasing every day.  Yet the responses are ludicrously inadequate.  Yesterday, President Obama announced that the United States would take 10,000 refugees next year, and he said it like it would make a difference.  It will, of course, make a difference for those 10,000 people, but it will do nothing to solve the humanitarian crisis the world is facing.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (here)

Wars, conflict and persecution have forced more people than at any other time since records began to flee their homes and seek refuge and safety elsewhere, according to a new report from the UN refugee agency.
UNHCR's annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released on Thursday (June 18), said that worldwide displacement was at the highest level ever recorded. It said the number of people forcibly displaced at the end of 2014 had risen to a staggering 59.5 million compared to 51.2 million a year earlier and 37.5 million a decade ago.

Recent reports say that the number is now over 60 million people.  Obviously resettlement is not a solution to this problem.  In the long term, ending war, violence, oppression and poverty is the only solution.  We need to let people live in peace and hope.

The current focus is on refugees from Syria who are fleeing in huge numbers.  The people of Syria are being killed, maimed and terrorized by their own government as well those opposed to the current government as well as ISIS, etc.  The United States response to this genocide has been pathetic.  I do not expect us to send ground troops, but we have the ability to enforce a no-fly zone but have refused to do so.

A recent article in The International Business Times (here) has a good analysis of the issues surrounding a no-fly zone.  The Telegraph published an op-ed piece by a representative of the Syria National Coalition (here) that argues convincingly for a no-fly zone.

A no-fly zone will stop the Syrian government from using barrel bombs to kill civilians, it should enable the establishment of safe zones where aid agencies can provide water, food and shelter.  I realize that Russia will probably continue to oppose any such actions, but we cannot sit by and continue to watch the genocide in Syria and force people to flee their homeland in violent and perilous conditions.  The world needs to stand up to bullies whether Bashar al-Assad, Putin, ISIL or any others.

President Obama needs to act.  We may not be successful, but we can no longer sit by and watch.  We need to give all the people displaced by war and violence around the world hope that the rest of world is not turning their backs on them.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal