Too many moving parts, too many

It is axiomatic in the planning "bidness" that a good plan is as simple as possible.  Any well done plan is set within a "universe" of assumptions concerning the situation in which the plan is viable or even needed.  For that reason there must exist among the planners a clear and valid understanding of the environment in which the plan will be executed.  I do not see that lucidity of thought in the Obama government

The various tasks assigned by a plan must be capable of accomplishment and they must not be mutually interfering, i.e., they must not block each other as they are performed.  The tasks in a plan are colloquially referred to by planners as "moving parts." Another planning axiom holds that the more moving parts there are in a plan, the more probable is failure in execution.  

Obama appears to have a mass of moving parts in his campaign plan:

- The plan assumes that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey can be made into active supporters of an anti-IS "war."  Qatar and Saudi Arabia were the only Wahhabi dominated states until IS proclaimed its caliphal status.  These two countries are deeply sympathetic to IS' goals if not its methods.  Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia were instrumental in the early stages of development of IS as it morphed from AQ Iraq, into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and then to a final glory as IS.  Do we really think it will be easy to enlist Qatar and Saudi Arabia in this fight?  Do we really think that these deeply Sunni states are going to support continued Shia governance from Baghdad?

 

- Erdogan's Turkey has been a supporter of Sunni governments and movements from the moment he took office.  Remember Erdogan's refusal to allow US troop transit (4th Infantry Division) for entry into Iraq from the north in 2003.  To this day, Erdogan is not allowing the use by the US of air bases in Turkey.  Those air bases would greatly facilitate air operations in Iraq and Syria.  It should be remembered as well that Erdogan's Turkey provided shelter, supply lines, transit rights and training space for IS among other Sunni jihadi groups fighting in Syria.  The Turks are still doing this.

- There is a new face in Shia government in Baghdad.  A new cabinet has been suggested as a possibility by the existence of that face. Unfortunately the two most important cabinet posts, Defense and Interior, have not been appointed yet.  IMO there will be a mighty struggle among the Shia Arabs over the issue of assignment of these two ministries to Sunni Arabs.  The Shia know that if they do not control the police and the army, they do not control Iraq.

- Obama intends to simultaneously wage war in eastern Syria against IS while also waging war in Western Syria against the Syrian Government.   He, apparently intends to ignore the possible cooperation of Syria with regard to airfields and air units as well as Syrian, and/or Hizbullah ground forces.  Churchill said that to fight Hitler he would fight him in hell if necessary and make an alliance with the devil to do it.  In accordance with that idea he allied the UK with the USSR.  Obama also intends to increase arms deliveries to "moderate" Syrian guerrillas.  IMO these groups never amounted to much militarily.  They were always the "unicorn army," and could never have defeated Syria's government no matter  what you gave them.  And in fact the "moderates" have among them many pro-jihadi people. 

- Yet another military axiom holds that "you can never have too many friends on a battlefield."  Iran is making friendlier noises concerning possible discreet cooperation and de-confliction of operations with a Western led coalition, but, no, even now Iran's advances are re-buffed publicly because Saudi Arabia and Israel don't like the idea. If Israel doesn't like something, well, that is the end of that thought.

- The notion is being nurtured by people like Robert Scales that something like the McChrystal led JSOC counter-terrorism campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan will deal comfortably with IS.  As Larry Johnson pointed out on this site, that campaign was about small raids against personalities, raids usually conducted in the dark of night and within territory dominated by friendly conventional forces.  IS is nothing like that target set.  This is a real guerrilla army, with real forces who run a real government that is now coming into being.  We should stop calling them terrorists and start calling them the enemy.

- Obama is firm that conventional US ground forces will not be committed to this war.  That means that other, foreign, forces will have to be found to act in coopertion with US and NATO air power.  Who will they be?

    *  Turkey is "out" for the reasons stated above.  The Turks were the most obvious choice for the job.

    *  The Iraqi army is  a shambles.  It will take years to try to make something of it.  Remember, we failed the last time.  Don't expect the Iraq army to be much help.

    *  The Pesh Merga are a guerrilla self defense force.  Give them heavy weapons?  Certainly, but it will take time for them to learn to use them effectively and the PM are unlikely to want to fight outside their homelands.  There are other Kurdish forces in eastern Syria but the Turks will be unhappy with strengthening them.

    *  The Egyptian army is large, inept and unlikely to be willing to fight in Syria or Iraq.  Sisi and the other generals will want to keep them at home to control any possible Islamist uprisings in Egypt.

    *  Jordan will be fully occupied with its own defense and a large Islamist 5th Column.

    *  Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait have little in the way of ground forces that have actual combat power.

In the end, if a decisive outcome is desired, there will be no alternative to substantial US ground forces.  That will mean reconstruction of the US logistical and command and control base in Iraq as well as the use of several air bases.  Is Obama going to demand legal extra-territoriality for our forces as a precondition? He should, but, will he?

A long campaign against IS will require the re-recruitment of Sunni Arab tribes in Iraq.  It can be done.  They hate the wahhabi jihadis and they will manage to forget our previous betrayal in favor of the Shia.  They more or less expected it then and will again, but the money will be good as will be the guns and the comradeship of the handful of Americans who like them.

Economic warfare, police action in the home countries of the West, border controls, yet tighter restrictions on personal freedoms in the West, these are all more moving parts.

I have no doubt that the US Congress will give Obama whatever he wants and the Republicans will then wait for next year for their chance to settle up with Obama.

Too many moving parts.  pl 

Comments

[Macgupta123]

ISIS is an eventual, not imminent, threat to the US. Keeping ISIS locked in a stalemate itself would postpone the threat it presents. US efforts should be proportional to its allies. That is, the US provides an umbrella under which they can act, plus provide them a "competitive" edge over ISIS.

Too many moving parts? Maybe. There is not the political unity at home to support anything better.

[shege]

Nice analysis. And after listening to the speech, I agree. Waaay too many moving parts.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what our minimalist strategy would be.

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

Thanks for your wisdom.

Without boots on the ground there is no chance to defeat ISIS without allying with Iran and Syria. Syrian Puppet Jihadists are just a quick way to transfer 500 million dollars of military supplies to ISIS; the real Jihadists. “Money for Nothing”. It goes right into the War Profiteers pockets.

Drone Assassination is counterproductive. The one sure thing is “Kill them all and let God sort them out”. The only other alternative that worked with USSR is forcing the surviving Middle Eastern States to close their borders and quarantine the Islamic State. Then tempt the faithful with modernity, science, prosperity, equality and fraternity. The problem is that these are the very things that the Economic Elite are stealing from Westerners since they started the Reagan-Thatcher Revolution.

[FB Ali]

Col Lang,

In your excellent analysis of Obama's strategy you raise the issue of who will do the fighting on the ground. In his speech Obama mentioned the Iraqi forces and the "Syrian opposition", by which he obviously meant the FSA.

AS you have said, it will take a long time for the Iraqis to field a credible force. The FSA is a joke. Patrick Cockburn has a piece in CounterPunch (http://tinyurl.com/q9lndvf) in which he quotes the FSA military leader, General Abdul-Ilah al Bashir, as saying that the CIA is now controlling the FSA (probably to ensure that the money and arms given to them don't vanish, as they have been prone to do so far).

It seems that the ground forces part of the strategy is eyewash, and it will mainly be an air campaign against IS. Supplemented by some Iraqi and Kurdish SOF raids mounted by their US advisers. It will be interesting to see how an air campaign against such an enemy succeeds.

As you say, getting the Sunni tribes to break with IS will be crucial. This will make a big difference to the outcome.

[tv]

Very good analysis of the achievable and the not achievable.
As for Obama's speech:
Aspirin for cancer.

[JerseyJeffersonian]

Colonel,

All too true. The product of policies ill-considered and/or too clever by half. Also unlikely to be corrected since, as you observe, any rational mid-course correction would offend the sensibilities of Israel and the Wahhabi states, who for some unaccountable reasons we consider our bestest buddies.

George Washington's warning against permitting the undue influence of foreign nations upon our nation's policies rings true yet again.

[dsrcwt]

The light footprint will also increase the probability of American hostages which will be a personal tragedy and a national PR disaster.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I wonder if Obama has gone Israeli enough to invoke their "Hannibal directive"?

[r whitman]

The President is trying to "manage the crisis" so we do not lose. Winning is not on the menu. He probably hopes to pass this mess along to his successor. He/she can then blame the Obama admin much as the Obama blamed the Bush admin for past errors.

[bth]

A goal of marginal containment through direct support to regional players combined with periodic retaliatory strikes might be the maximum realistic scope possible against the IS Sunni state-let.

Arm and train the Kurds positioning for independence to press IS on the east particularly around Kirkuk.Focus on small territorial gains and border consolidation. Form an alliance of convenience with Iran; also with Assad where mutually beneficial in the west. Assist the Shia Iraqis to train and fight with air support from the southeast, support Jordan heavily on the southwest of IS and make plain to Saudi, Kuwait and Turkey that they could be mangled by the IS monster they created.

The chance to destroy IS is gone. Targeting economic sites - gasoline refineries, small oil fields, bootleg pipelines, electric grids, plus pre-emptive strikes on any military concentrations might work but better to buy off the Sunni tribes slowly with Saudi money.

US public support for boots on the ground in the US is weak. US public support for covert and indirect methods is probable. NATO allied support is meaningless. Let them focus on their own eastern problems.... Does Obama have the support of the military and I'm not referring to the officers - but the enlisted? I don't see the trust. Does Congress have the will to fund more war? Even air wars are expensive. I doubt the political will exists. Past this Nov. election it will be budget gamesmanship all the way to the 2016 presidential.

[turcopolier]

bth

I am mindful of your loss in Iraq. Thank you for your thoughts on a plan. I spoke to a retired senior army officer last night. he remains well connected in the army at the "working level." He thinks the force will shatter if committed to another long war in the ME before it has a chance to heal psychologically from the repeated stress of multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The army is trying to stabilize people pn their home stations for the next several years. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, that seems to be the case.

[JohnH]

IMO the only strategy here is to give a market to arms dealers: sell lots of weapons to everybody and let them all kill each other.

The subtext here is that Obama will give the perception of "doing something," since for political reasons the US must do something whenever anyone who is not a "reliable partner" sneezes.

In a momentary lapse, Obama recently cautioned against "doing stupid things." He succumbed to political pressure and, being the empty suit he is, agreed to do "stupid things."

[William R. Cumminh]

CRUSADERS SADDLE UP AND PLEASE DON'T PUT THOSE SADDLES ON BACKWARDS?

[William R. Cumminh]

OK PL and ALL! Let's talk Turkey! And Iran! And Egypt! Of the 17 organizational components of the IC which one or ones most expert on MENA?

Is there anywhere in the private sector some help to the President? I note that RAND, an FFRDC, has a report out on IS! Any good?

[mike]

Just hours before Obama's speech last night a Turkish National Security Summit has decided to avoid direct attacks on ISIS. They cite their 49 diplomats being held hostage by the Daash as the primary reason. They did not rule out indirect support for the anti-ISIL coalition.

http://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2014/09/11/turkey-to-avoid-direct-attacks-against-isis-to-not-risk-the-lives-of-turkish-hostages

"Turkey’s main contribution would be to increase its border security to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq to join the ISIL, to deepen intelligence cooperation and sharing with Western countries, to assist the coalition by easing logistic transportation, and to continue effective humanitarian assistance to those in need - especially in northern Iraq."

[ISL]

Dear colonel,

thanks for a very insightful analysis. One aspect not mentioned is how the plan affects the possibility that IS will fall apart on its own. IMO providing an external enemy of the US prestige, reduces the likelihood. Meanwhile, it will be hard to make friends with the Sunni tribes if the Shiite militias - the defacto Iraqi military - act as in Amreli, with our air support and new weapons - mutually interfering wheels.

bth: I agree completely (the announced plan for victory seems to verge on the fanciful) that a minimalist plan - covert support for Iran, Kurds, (intelligence, etc.) and tribes, etc. in IS territory), would be best, in large part because it would maximize IS likelihood of internal collapse under external and internal pressures

[Jack]

Sir

Considering that the Saudis. Gulf countries and Turkey directly or indirectly support Caliph Ibrahim, why should the US intervene now?

Would the Caliph be brazen to attack US assets as AQ did if we leave him alone? Why not wait until the saudis and turks pay a price and are willing to fight?

[turcopolier]

ISL

IMO IS will not fall apart. It will grow. pl

[turcopolier]

mike
"They cite their 49 diplomats ..." A transparent evasion. We should start thinking about their usefulness in NATO. pl

[crf]

"I have no doubt that the US Congress will give Obama whatever he wants" -- pl

Do think he'll even deign to ask?

[turcopolier]

crf

They always want congressional approval if it costs nothing and this will cost nothing. pl

[Aka]

Dear Sir,
does even Obama believe the things he's saying?
IMO Obama is saying these things because he (as the US president) is expected to say somethings. If he does something, its because he is expected to do somethings.

I don't expect him to have any kind of a strategy regarding IS (whether in Iraq or Syria).

[mike]

Colonel Lang -

The newly reported FSA/YPG alliance in Syria may have some bearing on Turkey's decision also. Does this alliance signal to the Turks that American armaments to the FSA may end up in the hands of what is reported to be an adjunct of the PKK?

http://basnews.com/en/News/Details/YPG-and-Free-Syrian-Army-Agrees-to-Jointly-Fight-IS/33701

[Barry]

"Nice analysis. And after listening to the speech, I agree. Waaay too many moving parts."

And too many are enemies, and *at the unlikely best* will sorta cooperate until they figure that their interests would be better served by not.

Chief among them are Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who are supposed to be big backers of ISIS and any other hardcore Wahhabi groups.

[Babak Makkinejad]

There is no "strategy" here; as R. Whitman has observed below.

There is no Atlantic Charter, no discussion of the world after the end of the war, nothing - just indefinite war.

I do not want to make light of this crisis that could very well spread to other states but the only thing lacking here is the Marx Brothers.

Although rumor has it that Harpo has been seen in the White House.