You wouldn’t know it from the threat inflation (see here and here) by U.S. senior officials and politicians concerning the Islamic State — aka ISIL, ISIS, ISI, and AQI — but this terrorist threat is already successfully contained and poses little immediate or direct threat to American interests in the region or globally.
Yes, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel claimed that ISIL is an “imminent threat to every interest we have.” But let’s evaluate that assertion based on the evidence against the enduring national interests as articulated in the 2010 National Security Strategy.
Oil & Economic prosperity: ISIL has seized control of oil production facilities and is making money from illicit oil smuggling through Turkey, Syria, and Kurdish Iraq. But U.S. interests are primarily tied to the global price of oil and ensuring open access to the rich energy reserves of the region. This combination ensures competitively priced oil that literally fuels global economic growth. Oil prices continue to fall and the U.S. Energy Information Administration has revised its long-range outlook predicting prices “below $100 a barrel until early in the next decade.”
Homeland security: The barbarity of the beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker broadcast in videos viewed across the world have served dual interests of the these terrorists: to inspire fear among the public; and provoke an overreaction by status quo powers. Surveys suggest that (aided by threat exaggerations referred to above) a majority of the American public is convinced that ISIL has the ability to strike targets in the United States. But career-professional security and intelligence experts reviewing the actual evidence have drawn the opposite conclusion. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson earlier this month admitted, “we have no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the homeland of the United States.” Meanwhile, National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen, in a speech at the Brookings Institute, stated that ISIL is not capable of carrying out large-scale attacks and noted that the United States is “so much better postured, in so many ways, to see, detect, stop any attack like what we saw on 9/11.”
Now none of these statements mean that there is absolutely no risk of attacks inspired by ISIL or its ilk. As reports from Australia suggest, there will always be a few psychopathic killers who will find perverse inspiration from the hatred and false religion espoused by groups such as ISIL. But the best solutions to these thankfully few and far between threats are essentially defensive: focused intelligence, professional law enforcement, and effective border controls.
International Order & Regional Stability: ISIL has clearly taken advantage of the ungoverned spaces left in the wake of Syria’s bloody civil war. It also has managed to find temporary allies in the alienated Sunni communities of Iraq as a result of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shi’a sectarian rule in Baghdad. But ISIL has at best some 30,000 fighters mostly equipped with small arms including rifles and a few artillery pieces, although it has been able to add to this arsenal thanks to the vehicles and armaments seized from fleeing U.S. equipped Iraqi forces. They are opposed by a U.S.-equipped and trained Iraqi active frontline military estimated at 271,500 and equipped with main battle tanks, heavy artillery, and armored personnel carriers. Moreover, U.S., Russian, and Iranian fighter aircraft conducting supportive strikes are supporting these Iraqi forces. ISIL simply does not have the military capacity to seriously threaten the larger global or regional order (such as it is in the wake of the Arab uprisings, but that’s for another posting). While ISIL has taken advantage of the chaos in Syria and boiling sectarian tensions in Iraq, it is not the proximate cause for either of these conflicts.
Respect for universal values: ISIL’s brutality and abusive rule is obviously contrary to the Western liberal values of freedom and basic human dignity. However, the same can be said of virtually any violent criminal or extremist group. For instance, Mexican drug cartels conducted nearly 50 beheadings in a single month, have killed some 55,000, and aside from sharing a lengthy border with the United States, already have a major presence inside the country and have targeted and killed U.S. Customs officials. Why is ISIL’s brutality any more offensive to U.S. values than that of other terrorist or criminal groups?
President Obama: Even in his speech justifying additional U.S. military action against ISIL, President Barack Obama offered a distinctly qualified assessment of the threat from ISIL. Specifically, he asserted that “If left unchecked, [ISIL] could pose a growth threat beyond that region, including to the United States.” [emphasis mine] The fact is ISIL is already being actively opposed by numerous actors throughout the region — Kurdish peshmerga, elements of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shi’a militias, Iran, and Syria. (Including the government, the Free Syrian Army, and other opposition groups, such as ISIL’s fellow Islamist extremist groups. Yes, politics makes for strange bedfellows.) Moreover, Obama’s use of the word “could” itself is an open admission that ISIL is not an immediate threat, but rather one that might emerge over the course of time.
Given all of the above, it’s apparent that a contained ISIL is demonstrably not an immediate threat to vital U.S. national security interests in the region. In an age of fiscal austerity and after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan yielding little in tangible benefits, containment of ISIL is a responsible, feasible, achievable, and entirely sensible American strategic objective.
Little else by the U.S. needs to be done. ISIL has already been effectively contained by its own overreach and the fear it has inspired throughout the region. In military terms, it has reached a culminating point. ISIL’s appeal is limited to disenfranchised Sunni Arab communities that have been marginalized politically and savagely attacked by sectarian Shi’a and Alawite leaders in Baghdad and Damascus. Moreover, the desert area between Iraq and Syria is effectively surrounded by ISIL’s natural and mortal enemies (in the north by Kurds in Syria and Iraq; in the east by Shi’a Iran; in the south by Shi’a Iraqis, and the west by Alawite and Druze Syrian communities). As Tom Friedman and Rami Khouri have recently editorialized, the long-term solution to these violent Islamist extremist groups must come from the Arab societies and governments from which they spring.
Despite this evidence, however, many insist that more must be done by the U.S. government to destroy ISIL. But advocates of this more expansive objective must convincingly answer several questions associated with an approach involving deeper U.S. military engagement.
First and foremost, the United States deployed hundreds of thousands of combat troops who engaged in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than a decade, at a cost of several trillion dollars. In addition, thousands of U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and tens of thousands wounded. Yet these monumental efforts failed to prevent the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq or its subsequent manifestations including ISIL. What is different about the situation now? Why should anyone expect that this new military campaign involving far fewer military resources will succeed when prior campaigns have failed?
Secondly, how do supporters of a broader U.S. military campaign address the absence of committed, effective, and reliable regional powers willing to stand against ISIL?There is a new prime minister in Baghdad, but he comes from the same sectarian background as Maliki. Do we have evidence he will implement (not just promise) policies that will be substantively more inclusive of Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish minorities? Doesn’t deeper U.S. military commitments in the absence of these concrete reforms actually decrease his incentive to take these difficult political steps?
Moreover, governments bordering ISIL are questionable partners at best. Turkey (out of concerns for its hostages who were being held captive by ISIL in Mosul, and alarmist worries about Kurdish desires for independence being further enabled by increased U.S. military assistance) has openly refused to participate in the U.S. strategy articulated by Obama. Meanwhile, U.S. official policy is to oust Syrian President Bashir al-Assad thereby imposing inherent limitations on the cooperation we are likely to get from this neighboring country. Finally, although it would make perfect sense to cooperate with Iran against Sunni extremist elements such as ISIL, domestic politics and other foreign policy concerns on both sides are already handicapping any joint efforts from this important regional player bordering Iraq. This doesn’t even get into the double games being played by Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia — a country genuinely threatened by ISIL’s religious claims to the caliphate yet at the same time one that is funding and spreading reactionary Wahhabi interpretations of Islam fueling these same extremist groups — and Qatar — a small player punching well above its geopolitical weight, and whose official position is to support radical extremist groups in Syria and elsewhere in the region.
Thirdly, a strategy reliant largely on the exercise of military power risks undermining international and domestic law, to the detriment of U.S. interests. How do advocates of yet another war in the Middle East spearheaded by the United States avoid further damage to the perceived legitimacy of U.S. military actions both here and abroad? Obama has given no indication of whether he will appeal to the U.N. Security Council to gain international support for military action in Syria. Moreover, no such approval is likely given the near-certain opposition from Moscow. The absence of support in the United Nations, however, undermines the legitimacy of U.S. military actions in the eyes of many, to include those from Arab publics on whom we will depend to discredit, isolate, and ultimately destroy violent extremist Islamist groups such as ISIL. U.S. military strikes will also inevitably play into the Islamist narrative that the United States is at war with Islam, swelling the recruiting ranks for ISIL and any subsequent variants.
Perhaps even more importantly, President Obama has not committed to seeking an up or down congressional vote authorizing expanded U.S. military attacks against ISIL. President George H.W. Bush courageously did so in advance of Desert Storm in 1990, successfully securing support in a divided Congress, and as a result, largely united the country and world behind his military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Our national values are indeed our greatest moral strength and have been seriously tarnished by panic-inspired policies in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, including the official sanction and use of torture in interrogations, indefinite detentions without trial, and spying on U.S. citizens by our domestic intelligence agencies. An express congressional authorization (if not a formal declaration of war) for expanded military attacks against ISIL in Iraq and Syria would at least show the world that we comply with U.S. law even during difficult times (when it matters most).
Finally, despite Obama’s sincere desire to divest the country from expensive and “dumb” wars in the Middle East, his decision to launch another preventive war in this region already racked by civil war and rife with sectarian tensions virtually ensures a continuation of America’s forever war. To paraphrase Gen. David Petraeus, can anyone tell us how this ends?
Dr. Christopher Bolan is a Professor of National Security Affairs at The U.S. Army War College. The views expressed are his own.
Bill Nigh 
Luke Phillips 
PBAR 
Sparapet 
maphisto86 
Joshua Shapiro 
CBCalif 
Brad 
sunnie 
Josh 
John 
Ryan Evans 
Bryan McGrath 
John Haas 
Jose A. Garcia 
DPW 
Peter_E 
Excellent; I’ve posted links to this on several social media channels.
THANK YOU for the level-headed perspective, and damn those who seek to gain short-term political advantage or gain eyeballs with their florid overblown rhetoric on this matter.
I’m glad someone finally wrote this.
Amen brother!
I suppose if you define American interests as the price of gas and “direct threat to the homeland” this argument rings true.
Those would be utilitarian considerations, but I am not sure what theoretical world view they would serve.
As an American I think of Salafist Jihad as an ideological enemy akin to Communism, and one that deserves every effort to stamp out. The proliferation of Salafist Jihad is clear challenge to virtually every American interest wherever it reaches critical mass.
So what are the ISIL alternatives? Turkey + Iran + Iraq make for an unpredictable outcome, in several versions of which Shi’a rule and Iranian influence become so dominant as to be uncontested in the Middle East. In other versions, a cessation of hostilities with ISIL are reached, leaving a well funded Salafi state smack in the middle of the middle east. Indeed, these two alternatives are the natural results without western influence. So, which of these worlds best serves the US interests and those of our allies and of our human decency that we are so proud of and which our diplomats sing about to the world?
I do not see the “Islamic State” or Daesh (as its enemies should call it) as an existential threat to the United States of America or the Western World in general for the moment but I agree with Sparapet that we should not underestimate the allure of jihad for both Muslim and non-Muslim people who are either alienated, oppressed or simply have misplaced ideals (crazy is another factor of course).
I would add that there is really only one “existential” human threat to the US. It starts with nu and ends with clear. Everything else is manageable. ISIL’s threat has not been defined because our threat conversation fixates on a 9/11 “threat to homeland” narrative. In 1990 Iraq was not a threat to the homeland, but it was a threat to our regional interests.
Excellent piece. You’ve perfectly summed up the situation with a rational and level headed analysis and soundly defeat the causal logic behind the alarmist rhetoric being spewed by the media’s foreign policy/defense “experts” and pundits. I hope this paper is widely disseminated.
An excellent factual analysis describing the actual / minimal level of threat posed by ISIS to this country and its strategic interests in the Middle East. Containment of ISIS using American air power and local ground forces is the key to cost effective long term success in that predicament. And, if we can somehow leave ISIS an outlet such that they can direct their energy against the Shiite groups supporting Assad and they kill each other off, so much the better.
I cannot believe the number of commenters saying “Excellent analysis!” Comparing ISIS to the drug cartels is specious at best. The cartels operate on money. They kill specifically to dissuade others from taking their terrain. ISIS is an ideology, and it’s not going away. Yes, we can’t defeat it by military force, but it’s also acting as a state. We can defeat that, and we should. Allowing ISIS to march unchecked is asking for a complete destabilization of the Middle East. And you can say that’s okay, if you want to stick your head in the sand and say the Middle East has nothing to do with America – AKA Rand Paul. Already, Islamists from Libya (our great “leading from behind venture”) have said they’re going to declare a Caliphate and swear fealty to ISIS. Boko Haram has done the same, all on ISIS perceived success. Lebanon is on the verge sectarian slaughter and all other geopolitical considerations are under the ISIS brush: Houthis in Yemen, Iran in Bahrain, KSA interests in most of the middle east, Turkey’s decisions on everything it does, Russia, China, etc, etc, etc. Hell, NATO actions in the Ukraine have felt the ISIS brush. Saying ISIS is nothing but a trivial Iraqi problem is literally delusional, something I would expect from a Yahoo comment. Not something from someone who professes any skill in international affairs. Have you ever talked to a jihadist such as a member of ISIS? Seen the absolute conviction of their views? I have, and it’s scary. Yes, ISIS is, in and of itself, with it’s military prowess, not a large problem. The issue is that ISIS is an IDEOLOGY. It’s not a drug cartel predicated on making money. It’s the latest manifestation of a global threat that’s been around since AQ first issued a Fatwa against america (in our history, yes it’s been around much, much, longer), and to treat it as some regional thing is ridiculous. Its repercussions are – and, if not confronted, will be – huge. The easy answer is to stick our head in the sand and watch them march, saying at every step in the way, “Still not a threat to the homeland…” Right up until it is.
Oh, and as far as threats to America goes, I distinctly remember an FBI man, after the Cole Bombing, saying that al Qaida was a strategic threat. Everyone ignored him. He retired and became the head of security for a high-priced building in NYC. On 9/11, he died in tower two evacuating civilians. Spare me the non-proclimations of “imminent threat”. We only see “imminent” after it’s happened. You can say the threat is “few and far between” because you have the luxury of never having seen the fight. I have, and, while they are barbaric in their methods, they aren’t stupid. They aren’t living in a cave. If you doubt that, check Twitter or Facebook. They will come, and when they do, they will be successful. It will be a pyrrhic victory to throw your words back in your face.
Thank you for your eloquent analysis
Some people never learn. No one thought extreme islam was a threat to us prior to 9.11, even though the muslims had declared war on us years before. You can’t ignore people who declare war on you. It’s just stupid. In today’s day and age, one well-placed terrorist can kill hundreds or more. To minimize their threat is absolutely wrong and naive.
But, I suppose some people who agree with this would have let Germany run all over Europe in the 1940s so long as they weren’t a direct threat to us. Some of you would rather sit at home and do nothing while innocent people are being beheaded for the simple crime of not subscribing to their extermist brand of islam. Sir Edmund Burke was right when he said “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Saying they are not a direct threat to us when they are is simply an excuse to do nothing.
As a military officer with 20 plus years of experience in the intel arena I could not disagree more with this article.
Thanks John! We love debate here at WOTR, especially when those with considerable experience like you chime in. Tell us why you disagree
“ISIS is Contained and That Should Be Good Enough”. Hmm…I don’t think the article proves the title assertion, that ISIS “is” contained.
BUT–I would buy in if this were titled “Containing ISIS Should be Good Enough”, as I find the suggestion that the strategy is to “destroy” ISIS carries with it all manner of mischief.
A generally excellent argument. I would only question this:
“An express congressional authorization (if not a formal declaration of war) for expanded military attacks against ISIL in Iraq and Syria would at least show the world that we comply with U.S. law even during difficult times (when it matters most).”
Getting a Congressional authorization requires a full-court press of threat-inflation and fear-mongering. George H. W. Bush may have been “courageous” in seeking a vote in Congress, but it was purchased at the price of an immensely rushed schedule that made rational debate difficult, and even so required the president to compare Hussein to Hitler, and the Secretary of Defense to start shrieking about how we was about to get a nuclear bomb.
The damage that kind of hysterics does to the body-politic is as harmful, if not more, than executive unilateralism. After all, if we’re serious about our objections, we can always impeach him.
I would also add that, in large part because of the vulgar level most pro-war arguments have to hew to (by necessity), it’s rather difficult to defend authorizations on historical grounds. As I’ve argued over at Foreign Policy, of the US’s five wars that involved declarations, only one (WWII) has largely escaped severe criticisms from mainstream scholars.
While congressional authorization appeals to our abstract sense of respect for procedure, the fact is these 535 individuals generally perform very poorly, and it should require no argument at all to say our current congress would perform more poorly than most.
This isn’t about right or wrong. It’s about percentages. A large percentage of Americans demand the president do something about this.
ISIL is paying fighters $1,000 a month. They have access to good weapons and are waging a world wide media campaign. They are not contained, by any definition of that word, and are growing stronger because of our lack of will. Bottom line, this is not some morphed super virus that has grown out of Al Qaeda. It is the same punks we have previously witnessed who need another graphic lesson in the “Art of War.” We should respect Weinberger’s Six Tests when weighing the use of U.S. combat forces. In this case especially #4, “We must continuously keep as beacon lights before us the basic questions: Is this conflict in our national interests? Does our national interest require us to fight, to use the force of arms” If the answer is ‘yes’, then we must win. If the answer is ‘no,’ then we should not be in combat.” Or, in other words, “containment” is not one of the nine principles of war. MOOSEMUSS doesn’t have a “C.”
So, “War in reality, according to Sun Tsu looks like this:
*Extensive use of force and violence cannot be avoided.
*Little force cannot achieve much.
*Wars are often prolonged and indecisive.
*Intelligence is often unreliable.
*It is extremely difficult to perceive and understand one’s own weaknesses and strengths.” (Handel, Masters of War, p. 336)
We’ve begun our bombing ‘campaign’ in Syria. We have already been bombing Iraq. That does follow MOOSEMUSS and is called an offense. Some would call that war. The author concludes with a quote by General Petraeus asking is anyone knows how this turns out. Unfortunately I am afraid we do. Continue to prattle on about some such nonsense. We are breaking their will or they are breaking ours. The simple law of war. This enemy has called for a Holy War Jihad. I recommend that we give them exactly what they ask for with alacrity.
I agree with other comments: An excellent analysis.
However, Sarapet says: “As an American I think of Salafist Jihad as an ideological enemy akin to Communism, and one that deserves every effort to stamp out.” To which I reply, come on, Dude – Not the old Reds under the beds agrument again? Hasn’t history taught us anything about wasting fear and resources on bogey-men?
The Salafist/ Wahhbism idealogy is very different to most western viewponts (except for a few nutcase Evangelic Christians who are more in tune with them than they admit), and Suadi Arabia has a lot of the responsibilty for spreading the ideaology. But, to find the reason for the widening acceptance of this desert-nutcase-fundamentalism, look to the regional hsitory and the western powers serial screw-ups and missteps in the area.
From the post-Ottoman-Empire carve-up by the colonial poweres, to the US’s support of the Sauds, and the installation of the Shah or Iran (yeah, Shia, but meddling all the same). Then the duplicity of the Bushes; first the Desert Storm nonsense that turned the Muhajdeednm who had been armed and trained by the USA into Al-Queda. Next, GW’s mendacity and some preverted view that he was doing God’s work, supported by a bunch of cynical neocons.
The West’s track record in the region is not good, and it is nothig to be proud of. One would hope that if the wider American public knew what their fearless leaders are up to there would be wider-spread outrage than there is, but then again, maybe that is too much to ask for. Especially when one reads comments like: “This enemy has called for a Holy War Jihad. I recommend that we give them exactly what they ask for with alacrity.”
Perhaps this article should be revised or rethought. Does “contained” truly describe a group that has now demonstrated the ability to conduct a well-armed coordinated terrorist attack in a European capital?
Some would take issue.