The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a group of butchers. There is no question to the atrocities they are guilty of, from inhumane executions of prisoners, to organ trafficking and child prostitution, these disgusting religious extremists deserve nothing less than swift retribution. However, this white-knuckled rage against a stateless, seemingly faceless enemy, is a dangerous one that led us to the quagmire that was the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Looking at US military policy from the conflicts in the Middle East over the past decade, I believe there are things that could have been done differently, both on the battlefield and off of it. High civilian casualties, an absence of reliable government, and lack of dedicated humanitarian aid/infrastructure development after the siege of Baghdad led to a failure that even the most hard-nosed conservative would be pressed to support entirely. Despite this idea of temperance and looking toward history, my anger rose again when I wondered how many more headlines I would have to read of civilians executed by ISIL. Countries such as Jordan, with far fewer resources than the United States, have responded in kind to ISIL, showing they will not be cowed. My fears were put to rest a few weeks ago when it was announced President Obama was holding an address to the nation regarding action against ISIL.
In a televised address to the nation, President Obama finally responded to the elephant in the Oval Office, what the United States will do about ISIL. Many Americans tuned in nervously to hear what the president had in mind for this renewed foray into the Middle East. The memory of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan burn bright as ever for millions of veterans, gold star families, political pundits, and uniformed servicemen and women, standing as a grim reminder of its many shortfalls, both overseas and back home in the United States. Even if ISIL had never reared its ugly head from the ashes of Iraq as a result of the withdrawal of American ground forces, the fight in the Middle East was a pyrrhic victory at best. Stepping back into the battle against militant jihadism in a new flashpoint is a bold statement, and I was concerned for everyone who has been affected by the conflicts in the Middle East and wondered what another protracted ground conflict would bring.
To the relief of many, myself included, the president seeks to dial back the use of ‘conventional’ ground troops, and instead, hopes to try for a more support-oriented mission. The joint resolution seeks to use highly trained Special Forces operators to train local and coalition forces to defend themselves from ISIL. By supplementing this training program with limited direct action operations, airstrikes and military/humanitarian aid, the United States is changing how they approach conflicts that don’t fit traditional frames of historic conflict. It also shows the president’s willingness to seek less invasive means of military application, which I support and fully agree with as we enter a new generation of war fighting.
I think this resolution could mark a new direction for the United States’ armed forces as a whole. In order to combat non-state actors as well as smaller, under equipped guerrilla forces, similar to those the United States faced in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan before realizing that defeating an unconventional enemy requires tactics beyond those forged in the fires of World War II. The success of Special Operations forces such as the Navy SEALs, Army Delta Force, Marine Raiders and other specialized groups in the United States military is not only direct action and reconnaissance missions, but also in teaching and instructing local groups to fight against threats closer to them. This is where the United States can help militaries like Jordan’s learn to fight threats such as ISIL before they spiral out of control. While a conventional force of infantry and their supporting arms are crucial in being prepared for a more traditional war and to deter foreign aggressors, the current future against terrorist sects and other non-state actors has led the president to call upon these elite individuals to step forward and prove themselves against ISIL.
Sergey is a freshman writer for The Daily Cardinal. Do you agree with his views of President Obama's ISIL strategy? We want to hear your take. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
