When President Barack Obama announced an international campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State last year, the organization was primarily a regional threat, inflicting its savagery on the people of Iraq and Syria and on hostages from other
When President Barack Obama announced an international campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State last year, the organization was primarily a regional threat, inflicting its savagery on the people of Iraq and Syria and on hostages from other countries who were captured in the Middle East. But the coordinated attacks in Paris that killed 130 people and the downing of a Russian airliner suggest the organization has embarked on a campaign of exporting terror globally.
In response to those spasms of wanton killing, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution last week urging countries around the world to take “all necessary measures” to prevent terrorist acts by the Islamic State, al-Qaida and similar groups.
What should that mean for U.S. policy?
In an editorial after the Paris attacks, we counseled against a sudden lurch in what Obama has called “a steady, relentless effort” against the Islamic State, which so far has consisted of using U.S. air power and relying on local forces to fight the ground battles. We specifically rejected — and still oppose — a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that the U.S. deploy 10,000 troops to the region.
But the U.S. and its allies can and should increase the pressure on the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq in recognition of the group’s expanding agenda, and without committing the U.S. to provide “boots on the ground.” …
In a thoughtful speech last week on the presidential campaign trail, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for regional powers such as Jordan and Turkey to play a larger role in combating the Islamic State. But she also suggested a more flexible role for the more than 3,000 U.S. forces now serving in Iraq as trainers and advisers. She would allow U.S. personnel to be embedded with Iraqi units and to help call in airstrikes. …
There are two main objections to the U.S. ratcheting up its military involvement. One is that it will be too incremental to make much difference in the war zone. That’s true of any limited use of U.S. power, yet it’s not a persuasive argument for the U.S. waging another ground war in the Middle East. A related concern is that, if these steps do fall short, Obama and his military advisers eventually will be tempted to escalate further. This is the familiar “quagmire” argument, and it can’t be blithely dismissed. …
Clinton and many of the Republican presidential candidates have called for the creation of no-fly zones to prevent the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad from assaulting civilians and opponents from the air. The problem with this proposal is that it would be difficult to establish such areas safely without the cooperation of Russia, which also is conducting airstrikes in Syria. That underlines the importance of the United States continuing to work with Russia and other countries to bring about a political transition in Syria that preserves government institutions there while giving the Syrian people the opportunity to choose new leadership.
Finally, reducing the influence of the Islamic State also will require efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to the Middle East, prevent the radicalization of young people and block the funding of terrorist organizations. Military force is an important part of the equation … but it will not, by itself, counter the group’s influence.
Obama has been criticized for comments that seemed to minimize the threat posed by the Islamic State, including his declaration a day before the Paris attacks that the group had been “contained” (a reference to its failure to gain control over additional territory). Whatever fault one may find with his words, Obama has made an increasingly serious effort to counter the Islamic State, even when that involved military action that he once might have opposed. That doesn’t mean, however, that more can’t be done.
— Los Angeles Times
