US Ground Troops Possible in Anti-ISIS Battle

US_Ground_Troops

by Jim Lobe

US combat troops may be deployed against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) if the strategy announced by President Barack Obama last week fails to make substantial progress against the radical Sunni group, Washington’s top military officer warned here Tuesday.

The statement by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, delivered during testimony before a key Congressional committee, suggested for the first time that the administration may substantially broaden military operations in Iraq beyond air strikes and advising Iraqi and Kurdish forces far from the front lines.

“If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Dempsey told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“At this point, his [Obama’s] stated policy is we will not have US ground forces in direct combat,” he said. “But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”

Dempsey’s remarks, which came as Congress appeared poised to approve a pending $500 million request to train and equip Syrian rebels committed to fighting ISIS, as well as the government of President Bashar al-Assad, appeared certain to fuel doubts about Obama’s plans, particularly given his promise last week that US forces “will not have a combat mission.”

“We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he declared in last week’s nationally televised speech in which he also pledged to build an international coalition, including NATO and key regional and Sunni-led Arab states, to fight ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

While Secretary of State John Kerry has since gathered public endorsements for the administration’s strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS, notably at a meeting of Arab states in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last week and from a larger group of nations in Paris Sunday, skepticism over the strength and effectiveness of such a coalition appears to have deepened.

Although Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and France appear committed to providing some air support to anti-ISIS operations, several key allies, including Britain, have remained non-committal about their willingness to help with military operations.

Turkey, whose army is the largest and most potent in the region and whose porous borders with ISIS-controlled regions in eastern Syria have been fully exploited by the group, has been particularly disappointing to officials here.

Despite repeated appeals, for example, Ankara has reportedly refused to permit US military aircraft to use its strategically located Incirlik air base for carrying out anything but humanitarian missions in or over Iraq, insisting that any direct involvement in the campaign against ISIS would jeopardise the lives of dozens of Turkish diplomats seized by the group at Ankara’s consulate in Aleppo earlier this year.

Critics of Washington’s strategy are also concerned that Kerry may have reduced the chances for co-operation with another potentially key anti-ISIS ally—Iran—which he explicitly excluded from participation in any international coalition due to its support for Assad and its alleged status as a “state sponsor of terror.”

While Kerry Monday said Washington remained open to “communicating” with Tehran—which, among regional powers, has provided arms and advisers to both Kurdish and Iraqi forces—about its efforts against ISIS, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who earlier this month reportedly authorised limited co-operation over ISIS, ridiculed the notion, insisting that it was Iran who had rebuffed Washington.

But Kerry’s exclusion of Iran from the anti-ISIS coalition, according to experts here, was motivated primarily by threats by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to drop out if Tehran were included—a reflection not only of the ongoing Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the region, especially in the Syrian civil war, but also of the difficulty Washington faces in persuading governments with widely differing interests to unite behind a common cause.

“Leaving Iran out of the collective effort to contain and eventually destroy ISIS, especially after what happened in Amerli [a town whose siege by ISIS was eventually broken by a combination of US airpower and Iranian-backed militias and Iraqi troops], defies logic and sanity and cannot be explained away by anyone in Iran,” noted Farideh Farhi, an Iran specialist at the University of Hawaii.

“It suggests to many [in Iran] that the fear of legitimising Iran’s role in regional security continues to be a driving force in US foreign policy,” she told IPS in an email exchange.

Indeed, the success of Obama’s strategy may well depend less on UA military power than on his ability to reconcile and reassure key regional actors, including Iran.

“To have any hope of success, “America’s do-it-yourself approach needs to be replaced with an effort to facilitate co-operation between the region’s great Muslim powers,” according to Amb. Chas Freeman (ret.), who served as Washington’s chief envoy to Riyadh during the first Gulf War.

“… As long as Saudi Arabia and Iran do not make common cause, any coalition to combat Islamist fanatics will be half-hearted at best and unrooted in the region at worst,” he told IPS.

Despite these difficult diplomatic challenges faced by Obama, most of the skepticism in Washington revolves around his military strategy, particularly its reliance on air power and the absence of effective ground forces that can take and hold territory, especially in predominantly Sunni areas of both western and north-central Iraq and eastern Syria.

While US officials believe that Kurdish peshmerga forces and the Iraqi army—with Iranian-backed Shi’a militias—can, with US and allied air support, roll back most of ISIS’s more-recent gains in Iraq, it will take far more time to wrest control of areas, including cities like Fallujah and Ramadi, which the group has effectively governed for months.

Obama announced last week that he was sending nearly 500 more military personnel to Iraq, bringing the total US presence there to around 1600 troops, most of whom are to serve as trainers and advisers both for the peshmerga and the Iraqi army.

According to Dempsey, however, these troops have not yet been authorised to accompany local forces into combat or even to act as spotters for US aircraft.

As for Syria, Washington plans to train and equip some 5000 members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a fractious coalition of “moderate” fighters who have been increasingly squeezed and marginalised by both pro-government forces and ISIS and who have often allied themselves with other Islamist groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate.

It will take at least eight months, however, before that force can take the field, according to Dempsey and Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel.

Even then, they said, such a force will be unable “to turn the tide” of battle. Dempsey said he hoped that Sunni-led Arab countries would provide special operations forces to support the FSA, although none has yet indicated a willingness to do so.

Hawks, such as Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have argued that these plans are insufficient to destroy ISIS in either country.

Some neoconservative defence analysts, such as Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, have called for as many as 25,000 US ground troops, including thousands of Special Forces units to work with “moderate” Sunni forces, to be deployed to both countries in order to prevail.

They have also warned against any cooperation with either Iran or Assad in the fight against ISIS.

Paratroopers of the 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade depart Lielvarde Airbase, Latvia, Sept. 8, 2014, at the conclusion of NATO Exercise Steadfast Javelin II.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Jim Lobe

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.

5 Comments

  1. I read an article in another blog today, about the U.S.Air force procurement process, called D.O.O.M., which I won’t go into, but this mindset in the Military hasn’t produced any winners as of today, save for the producers of the war toys and ammunition makers. Has any of this latest warmongering made the U.S. safe? The answer is it depends on which side of the issue one stands. It defies logic, when these same people keep saying the same thing, even when it’s proven to be a failure. Until the U.S. stops funding both sides in these wars, keeps its collective nose out of other peoples business, then the failure record will continue racking up the points, at the taxpayers expense. Keep in mind that $17 Trillion debt rung up so far in this war on terror, that your children/grandchildren/greatgrandchildren and probably beyond if the world hasn’t been blown up before then will be paying for it. Oh, and all this plus what ever else our “Peace P.O.T.U.S.” can muster up, between the corrupt Congress and the out of control neocon state department/executive branch. One last thing: don’t forget to vote for your preferred candidate in November, if for no other reason then to say you did, which really doesn’t matter anyway.

  2. Putting US troops on the ground in Iraq or Syria, to fight Isis, would be a colossal blunder. In my judgment.

  3. In Syria? As long as they’re on the ground fighting ISIS why not take that opportunity to do some regime change like toppling Assad.

    You could see this coming 10 miles away.

  4. This is an excellent and comprehensive summary of the picture on the ground. It is consistent with the bits and pieces I have read in other trustworthy sources, certainly much better than the biased pieces of WSJ and NYT. Well done.

Comments are closed.