The Weekly standard
The U.S. counter-ISIS campaign may be racking up tactical victories in Iraq and Syria but the narrow focus on it also risks America’s interests over the long run. American military personnel and local partners have been taking the fight to ISIS, helping liberate territory from the Islamic extremist force in both Iraq and Syria. Yet they have done so under a policy framework that will squander, rather than capitalize on, their hard-fought gains.
The problem is that American actions are narrowly fixated on the ISIS threat to the exclusion of the forces that gave rise to it and continue to fuel it. The Obama administration created this problem; the Trump administration is currently reinforcing it.
The military spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS recently highlighted the dissonance in the current approach. Reporters pressed the spokesman on how the U.S. military would react to pro-Bashar al Assad forces—including Iranian-directed fighters and the Russian military—expanding their footprint to try and “defeat ISIS” in eastern Syria. “We’re perfectly happy with that,” he replied. These forces’ movement to towns south of Raqqa along the Euphrates River Valley (ERV) and out to the Syrian border with Iraq “would be welcome” he added. Defense Secretary James Mattis expanded upon this view by asserting that as long as Iran and its proxies do not directly attack U.S. forces, they can freely expand into the ERV and the U.S. will simply cede terrain by drawing “squiggly” lines of control to accommodate the Iranian-led campaign.
But the Assad-Iran-Russia axis push damages American national security interests in several ways.
First, “the Assad regime” is effectively a vehicle for Iran and its proxies (along with Russia) to pursue their ambitions. Iran is waging an active campaign to dominate the broader Middle East, drive America out, and destroy one of our key allies, Israel. Russia is waging a multi-prong campaign targeting the U.S. and its interests. The Russo-Iranian coalition’s attempt to extend its writ in Syria deserves a red flag—not a red carpet.
Second, arsonists generally do not make good firefighters. The pro-Assad coalition has waged war in Syria in ways that has radicalized the Syrian population and buttressed jihadists’ recruitment campaigns. How would its advance help bring about a sustained defeat of ISIS and its ilk?
Third, this open invite will send a signal that the United States has learned nothing from the disastrous policies that President Obama pursued. America spent years picking off Islamic terrorists without a broader plan to destroy the Islamic extremist base and to prevent its resurgence. Doubling down on narrow, short-term remedies will only serve to embolden aggressors and widen the gulf with allies and partners.
American policy in Syria cannot afford to remain on autopilot while our vital interests are under siege. The president and his national security team must dispense with the policy construct they inherited and pursue actions which advance America’s objectives. President Trump has indicated he intends to roll back the Iranian regime’s project in the broader Middle East—not further appease the Iranians, as his predecessor did.
The recent statements from the Pentagon contradict that goal and ought to set off alarm bells in the White House.