What Would It Take to Destroy the Islamic State?

Share:

ISIS fighters 2By Mike Pearl
Even before Friday’s terrorist attacks on Paris, Western nations had been bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but judging from the rhetoric of the last few days, there’s a good chance the efforts to eliminate the notorious Islamist group will be ratcheted up.

French President Francois Hollande has pledged to “destroy IS” and called upon the US and Russia to form “a union of all who can fight this terrorist army in a single coalition.” In America, when politicians aren’t declaring their intention to stop refugees from Syria from entering the country they’re reiterating the need to defeat IS in the most hawkish language available. It’s gotten to the point where President Barack Obama has had to go on the record and restate the obvious, that a large-scale ground war with IS would be “a mistake.”

This seems like a good time to step back and ask how NATO and Russia would go about toppling the Islamic State. So VICE got in touch with Omar Lamrani, a military analyst for the Texas-based military think tank Stratfor, and ran through a some hypotheticals to get a picture of how different options would shake out. Here’s our conversation, edited for length and clarity:

VICE: What are some ways the West could defeat the Islamic State once and for all?
Omar Lamrani: There are many things you can do to hurt IS, but there are two factors that have to be taken into account in order to finish them off. You could hurt them by going after their finances. Obviously the United States is going after the oil infrastructure and energy infrastructure in the strikes today in Deir ez-Zor Province, which hit something like 116 oil trucks. We’ve seen them do decapitation strikes, striking their leaders. We’ve seen them do propaganda warfare, airstrikes, interdiction strikes, going after their logistic supply lines. Airstrikes and financial stuff can only do so much without guys on the ground to take the fight to IS and occupy their terrain.

Have actual incursions by US troops done major damage?
Up till now we’ve seen very, very few cases where they took out IS leaders without resorting to kinetic strikes from the air. We saw that raid in eastern Syria where they [killed] a leader involved with oil. That was through an insertion by special operations, but that’s very rare. They’re talking about doing more of that. We’ve also seen that case where they [rescused] those prisoners, but that wasn’t really a decapitation strike. Essentially, what the United States is talking about is increasing raids, and the “RRR strategy,” which is “Raqqa [the largest IS-controlled city], Ramadi, and raids.” That involves more hits with commandos, and more special forces raids. But up till now, the vast majority of decapitation strikes were conducted by kinetic strikes from UAVs [a.k.a. drones] and fighter jets.

Don’t new leaders just pop back up every time the US takes one out?
The US keeps saying that when they kill the first leader, a deputy will also be killed, and that slows momentum. When you keep killing leaders, it has an effect over time, and yes, that’s true to a certain extent. It definitely hurts IS. But a death blow? Can you finish IS by just killing their leaders? That’s not the case. The US itself would admit that. It comes out and says without forces on the ground, we cannot actually finish off IS. Without actually occupying the ground in which they operate, IS will continue to survive.

Obama wants to “intensify” the existing campaign. Can more airstrikes produce decisive, major victories by themselves?
Let’s look at what happened in Sinjar [where the Kurds won a victory against IS]. When you have airstrikes in conjunction with a ground-force element, that can prove quite decisive. But airstrikes alone cannot change the picture. IS can be stopped to a certain extent—it can be contained and kept from taking new territory. We saw what happened in Kobane, where the defenders would have very likely been overrun had it not been for US airstrikes. The United States can go up there with its air power and contain further IS growth, but as we saw with the Paris attacks, they’re able to hurt the allies’ interests abroad.

What’s the biggest downside with airstrikes?
Airstrikes can’t directly support [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad’s forces. So we saw IS shift over time toward attacking targets which are not heavily covered by air support, and take advantage of that. The recent capture of Maheen [earlier this month], and before that Palmyra [an occupied Syrian town of worldwide archeological significance that was severely damaged this year] are examples. So there are serious limitations to airstrikes. They can be extremely helpful. They can be very decisive in containing IS gains. But by themselves they’re not a silver bullet.

Is there a magic ratio of special forces raids, airstrikes, and local paramilitary forces?
It’s not like there’s a clear way forward that’s just not taken. Let’s take the Kurdish example, which really illustrates this greater point. With the Kurds, they’ve proven very effective in fighting IS within the territory—namely northeast Syria, if you’re talking about the YPG [the largely Kurdish defense forces that oppose IS]. They’ve proved that they can push back the Islamic State. The problem is twofold: One, the Kurds can only operate in northeast Syria. They do not have the popular support to go in beyond northeast Syria because they’re a small demographic in the greater Syrian country. They do not have the grassroots capability to push far beyond into Arab terrain. They wouldn’t be effective there. They don’t have the numbers, and they don’t have the historical connection to that territory. They don’t have the know-how to go into that territory, and there’s also the other issue, two: Turkey. Turkey is extremely concerned with the Kurdish question. They’re not inclined to support any move that empowers them further. We’ve seen them carry out airstrikes against them when they tried to cross the Euphrates River westward. So in a sense, the Kurds are partly a solution. They can hurt IS in northeastern Syria and part of Iraq, but they themselves cannot be relied upon.

Hollande says France will “destroy” IS. Is France about to put boots on the ground?
I haven’t seen any indication that makes it clear that France is going to go in there with ground forces. I’ve seen reports that they’re considering potentially sending special operations forces like the United States.

So if a ground invasion isn’t likely, what should a combined international strategy look like?
We are seeing a shift in dynamics where there’s a desire to end the Syrian conflict. The reason being, the vast focus of the loyal [i.e. pro-Assad] side and the [non-IS] rebel side is on each other. And that gives IS greater leeway to operate on the fringes, and seize opportunity to take terrain, and so forth. If they do reach an accommodation, a ceasefire, or peace, essentially down the road, it’s going to be much easier to fight against IS. It’s something that the the Russians, the Americans, and the French know the others can agree on. The problem is getting there, given that both sides are so entrenched in their respective proxies on the ground—meaning the Syrian loyalists versus the rebels.

So is it necessary to somehow make loyalists and the rebels play nice?
It’s easier said than done, if you’re going, “Oh, let’s get this peace treaty, and let’s fight together against IS!” These countries have extreme suspicions of each other. The United States does not trust Russia, and when Russia began its strikes in Syria, they said they were going to go against IS, but 80 percent of their strikes were against the rebels rather than IS. There’s quite a big gap there that’s not very easy to bridge. We might see more, pushing toward this peace treaty, but it’s nowhere near mission accomplished there.

Let’s say the US and its allies can make nice with Russia. What could they accomplish together?
I’m hesitant to go into speculation and hypotheticals, but if they do reach an accommodation between the foreign powers, then the important thing is when you go into eastern Syria, you have to take into account the locals’ initial grievances. You might assemble the military force necessary to take it. Especially in an ideal world, if you’re talking about a situation where the loyalists and the rebels band together against the Islamic State—that’s a very, very strong force. That’s something that can defeat the Islamic State. That would just be overwhelming for the Islamic State, and it would be able to push them out. But the underlying grievances and tensions won’t necessarily be removed, especially if you’re talking about a situation where Assad’s power exists. The problem with going into hypotheticals is that the rebels wouldn’t cooperate with Assad. It’s one thing to remove them militarily, but then you go back to the original problem.

Can’t there be a legitimate Syrian regime without Assad?
If it’s not Assad, it’s still going to be someone the rebels don’t like. If that drastically changes, then we’re talking about a different situation entirely. If we’re talking about a situation where the Russians and the Iranians say, “OK, we’ll drop Assad. We’ll accommodate the rebels.” We’ll be able to figure out which rebels to talk to. We’re talking about a lot of factors that will have to go really, really well to reach this point in time where there’s a combined force ready from both the rebels—former rebels at this point—and the loyalists to go into Eastern Syria and fight IS.

And bypassing the question of who’s in charge in Syria isn’t an option?
There are so many obstacles on the way to that ideal scenario. It’s not possible for it to work without first resolving the Syrian Civil War. The Islamic State won’t be defeated until the Syrian Civil War is dealt with.

Can’t there be a legitimate Syrian regime without Assad?
If it’s not Assad, it’s still going to be someone the rebels don’t like. If that drastically changes, then we’re talking about a different situation entirely. If we’re talking about a situation where the Russians and the Iranians say, “OK, we’ll drop Assad. We’ll accommodate the rebels.” We’ll be able to figure out which rebels to talk to. We’re talking about a lot of factors that will have to go really, really well to reach this point in time where there’s a combined force ready from both the rebels—former rebels at this point—and the loyalists to go into Eastern Syria and fight IS.

And bypassing the question of who’s in charge in Syria isn’t an option?
There are so many obstacles on the way to that ideal scenario. It’s not possible for it to work without first resolving the Syrian Civil War. The Islamic State won’t be defeated until the Syrian Civil War is dealt with.

And after that, how would you make sure IS stayed gone?
If you don’t divorce IS from the Sunni community within Syria and Iraq in which they operate, then you will always have the same problem potentially coming back. You have to remember what happened in Iraq after the surge and after the Anbar Awakening, we actually saw the jihadists there, not completely destroyed, but largely negated to a significant extent. Violence went down dramatically. That’s because, to a large extent, the Sunni community was brought into the talks. They were given a way out of the crisis. They were told that things could get better for them, that something could be arraigned with Baghdad, with the government. But that didn’t really end up happening, and the historical grievances of the Sunni community within Iraq and Syria make it so that groups like IS and other jihadist actors can keep coming back.

Is there another option?
You could try to foment an internal revolt. That might be your wild card. You might seek people under the Islamic State to revolt against them. We might see the Islamic State being removed, but that still leaves us with a situation where another group like the Islamic State, or its successor, will pop up in the same area.

Are you saying the West just needs to slow down, or be patient, or something like that?
We’re looking at a situation that’s very, very hard to solve in a short time. That, I think, is the takeaway. This is a historical problem, rooted in historical grievances between Sunnis, Shiites, families, borders, ethnicities, and religions. So it’s very difficult to magically solve a problem that’s been there a while, and has been made worse over the last decade of war.

VICE

Share:

Comments

29 responses to “What Would It Take to Destroy the Islamic State?”

  1. man-o-war Avatar

    We could start by wiping out their command and control center in Raqqa. Put them on the run, instead of this sanctuary city they have now. Make it more difficult for them to plan attacks and gather financial resources.

    1. “We”?

      But yet you got offended when doron said “the seed you planted”

      1. man-o-war Avatar

        Yeah, very different. “we” meant as the collective nations/peoples that oppose daesh trash and would like them to cease to exist. “You” is not the same as “we” and the context it was used in was different as well.

  2. That s right!^Historical problems and grievances ^have to be dealt with,have to be resolved !Bombing ,massive airstrikes etc is not a solution!! There has to be a new political solution ,a new approach!!!…What happened after the Gulf War???!!!What is happening now ??!!!. More extreme groups will^pop up^ and spread everywhere and it will be more and more difficult!!

  3. Britain would like to receive the mandate of the UN Security Council to reinforce its actions in Syria. This was announced by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom David Cameron

  4. Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on ISIL Terrorist Abu-Muhammad al-Shimali http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/11/249666.htm

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar

      (lottery with a real chance…)

  5. Russia has made to the UN Security Council a draft resolution on new anti-IS struggle http://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/19/resolution/

  6. 5thDrawer Avatar

    “This is a historical problem, rooted in historical grievances between Sunnis, Shiites, families, borders, ethnicities, and religions.” …. Too bad they didn’t think that way when deciding to ‘fix’ Iraq.
    But here we are. ASSad’s great mess. Lebanon’s best bet is to do what it said 5 years ago .. stay out of Syria and defend it’s OWN borders.

    1. Lebanon is not going to stay out of Syria until the Ayatollah’s proxy Nassrallah is ordered OUT. That’s not going to happen.

      What NEEDS to happen, is that the West needs to recognize that various factions will reject each other in total, and refuse to live together peacefully. It’s time to put the false States of the Mandate System in the trash and draw borders that reflect reality and not wishful thinking.

      1. 5thDrawer Avatar

        They tried that with Israel … changed from a mandated area and got out … nothing but clawing & scratching ever since.
        So you think if there is Shialand here, and Sunniland there, and a little Christianville in another small spot, then everything should work … but in some areas they always lived together fairly well, and some of the escapees will want to go back there – then feel it’s unfair that they have to go to their own sectual place. Or unfair that Sunnis get more area because they are the most.
        And you must remember that not a lot of them respect blue lines. How can you expect them to respect new borders?? The Kurds have gotten back most of Kurdistan, and will respect Yazidiville, but Turks just hate the prospect. Maybe some can go snooze in Druzeville ok, but they actually get along with Jews too, so they can stay there … and Lebanon separates them from Alawites … but everyone will bitch that those two gangs get to keep their homes.
        This time everyone was trying to stay out of it at first, and just let ASSad whack them all down again, but it didn’t work. SO … that’s not the answer either.
        There is no ‘good’ answer. Some need to accomodate a new reality. Living together in a democracy of some formulation might be the only way. Lebanon keeps trying to formulate.

  7. Russian long-range aviation deals new blow to the terrorists in Syria
    A squadron of Tu-22M3 bombers attacked six sites in the provinces of
    Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, six facilities were fired cruise missiles
    launched from the Tu-160 bombers over Russia.
    From
    09:00 to 9:10 from the Russian Federation’s strategic missile carriers
    Tu-160 carried out 12 launches of cruise missiles, airborne objects at
    IS in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. Air strikes destroyed three command points, two warehouses of weapons and ammunition, field camp of militants.
    In the afternoon, Tu-22M3 bombers attacked with bombs in six facilities in the provinces of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. Objectives strike was the communications center,
    warehouses of ammunition and weapons, fighters and training base for the
    production of Minifactory explosives and car bombs.
    Russian aviation group with Hmeymim air base in Syria as of 16:00 Moscow made 59 sorties at 149 targets. In total, during the day November 18 scheduled 100 flights on 190 objects (GT)

  8. Destruction columns fuel tankers carrying oil products for the benefit of terrorist organizations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgYbiCGYy2c

  9. Application of an air strike on one of the refineries owned formations ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EIwy2RoQo4

    1. 5thDrawer Avatar

      Helping Green the Planet … Must be showing these at the Glorious Convention.

  10. According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, based on the analysis of data from the United Nations, the World Bank, IMF and other international and national agencies, in 2014 direct damage to the global economy from the terrorist activities amounted to 52.9 billion dollars.
    This figure exceeded the record of 2001, when losses amounted to 51.51 billion dollars

  11. Kuwaiti authorities have arrested members of the extremist network which is engaged in supply of terrorists from the “Islamic state” with money and weapons, including missiles. Informs Reuters referring to the Kuwaiti Ministry of Interior
    The group included Lebanese, Egyptian, five Syrians, two Australians and a citizen of Kuwait

  12. You can’t destroy ideology!

    1. “Too often the old adage ‘you cannot destroy an idea’ is used as an excuse to do nothing when liberal values are confronted by extremism. The phrase has been resurrected once again to rebut those advocating increased military action against Islamic State. But history shows us that ideas can be beaten when the people that promote them are challenged.”

      https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/you-can-destroy-an-ideology-on-the-battlefield/

      1. Nazism has been challenged after the Second World War, still the Nazi ideology exist and flourish around the world.

        History proved that we can not destroy an ideology on the battlefield.

        1. Michaelinlondon1234 Avatar
          Michaelinlondon1234

          Nazism is woven in to the US world domination philosophy Run by the Jewish mafia

          1. For such a tiny country with an even smaller population, Israel certainly has the Islamic world by the nuts. Even with all the BS that spouts from Iranian leaders about destroying Israel, they still prefer to kill Arabs over Israeli’s. Marg bar Khamenei, wouldn’t you rather improve your mother country rather than see it further destroyed by mad mullahs quest to dominate the ME .

          2. The neonazis have nothing to do with “the Jewish mafia”, or “the US world domination philosophy”.

            The neonzis are feeding on the type that you represent.

    1. Yes, much the same BS that Iran does.
      Islamic countries are ruled by total crap laws and stupid backwards morality.

  13. Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström is worried by the rising tide of young Swedes who are joining the Islamic State.

    Don’t Delude Yourself EU:
    It’s Not Despair That’s Driving Muslims to ISIS – It’s Hope!

    Anyone who advances the paradigm of desperation – including the perplexed in Israel – are making a fundamental mistake.

    Islamic State does not act out of desperation. Just the opposite.

  14. Michaelinlondon1234 Avatar
    Michaelinlondon1234

    “Even before Friday’s terrorist attacks on Paris, Western nations had been bombing”??????
    It is the Jewish Mafia. We slaughter every one for Israel. We exterminate whole civilisations for Israel.

  15. All countries could just do what Russia, and Syria currently do. Bomb everything and everyone that does not believe in the dictator for life Assad. Or, just let it become the Iranian and Russian graveyard and don’t forget to blame Israel for all of it, if it helps you sleep at night.

    1. Michaelinlondon1234 Avatar
      Michaelinlondon1234

      I did suggest nuking Jerusalem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *