Paris attacks: Would US troops in Syria play into Islamic State's hands?
| Washington
Even as raids are going on in Paris and details of the terrorist attacks are still emerging, robust calls for the US government to 鈥渄o something鈥� 鈥� to 鈥渢ake the fight鈥� to the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) 鈥� have started streaming in.
GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he would launch 鈥渁 major American offensive against ISIS right now.鈥� Another Republican candidate, Ben Carson, posited that 鈥渂oots on the ground would probably be important.鈥�
President Obama pushed back against these calls this week, saying that 鈥渓arge numbers of US troops on the ground鈥� would be 鈥渁 mistake.鈥�
But there is a danger that the United States could pursue an incremental plus-up in forces that could accidentally play into IS hands, some analysts warn. They caution, too, against anything approaching a long-term occupation, with some suggesting that a concentrated, briefer action could be effective.
In this regard, some lessons can be learned from internal Al Qaeda memos in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent US military intervention in the region. While Al Qaeda publicly railed against the 鈥渋nfidel crusaders鈥� in their lands, behind the scenes something else was going on.
鈥淲e didn鈥檛 understand then that Al Qaeda was dearly hoping for a large military deployment so that it could bog us down and win this propaganda war,鈥� William McCants, director of the Project on US Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, told Vox News.
The impulse to do 鈥渟omething, anything is an understandable reaction鈥� to the Paris attacks, says Emma Ashford, visiting fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington.
The fact that the US has 鈥渁n excellent military鈥� increases 鈥渢he temptation to use it when we鈥檝e got this great tool,鈥� she adds. 鈥淚t鈥檚 quick, it鈥檚 easy, and it looks like you鈥檙e doing something.鈥�
Given this, 鈥淚鈥檓 glad to see that President Obama has said that he won鈥檛 be making this sort of knee-jerk large-scale reaction to the tragedy.鈥�
Getting drawn into conflict may not appear to benefit IS 鈥� the group is on the receiving end of a stepped-up bombing campaign, after all 鈥� 鈥渂ut it does benefit their ideology,鈥� Dr. Ashford says. 鈥淲e could see more groups draw inspiration from that, knowing that the US can be baited into attacking them, even if their size is relatively small.鈥�
It is a classic guerrilla warfare maneuver, she adds. 鈥淚t鈥檚 how these fighters cause larger countries to overreact.鈥�
At the same time, France is stepping up its bombing campaign inside Syria and is calling on other states to increase their contributions to the coalition, though it has not invoked NATO鈥檚 mutual defense pact, known as Article 5.
There also have been incremental increases in US contributions to the region over the past 2-1/2 years.
鈥淭he trouble is that all of these 鈥榣imited military means鈥� tend to fail expensively, rather than cheaply,鈥� says Stephen Biddle, professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University in Washington.
Pursuing 鈥渓imited鈥� military means 鈥渢ends to be the worst of the military options, because where it leads us is mission creep. That鈥檚 what鈥檚 been going on in Syria and Iraq for a year,鈥� he adds.
This means that 鈥渢hey do a little. It doesn鈥檛 work. Then they change policies, and do a little more. It鈥檚 been small incremental escalations since June 2014,鈥� Dr. Biddle says, 鈥渨hich often happens when you try to occupy the middle ground.鈥�
The problem, however, is not that the US might be drawn into using ground forces in the Middle East; it鈥檚 the length of time of the mission, argues retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, former executive officer for retired Gen. David Petraeus in Baghdad during the surge of US forces in 2007 and 2008.
Engaging in a long-term occupation would play right into the hands of IS, he says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what they want 鈥� for the US to get involved occupying parts of Syria and Iraq, which it can then use as propaganda to tell its adherents and sympathizers that the crusaders are back in the Middle East.鈥�
Instead, the US should use ground forces 鈥渢o destroy ISIS in a way that mirrors what we did in Afghanistan in 2001,鈥� says Dr. Mansoor, who is now a professor of military history at Ohio State University in Columbus. That is to say, using US infantry soldiers, Marine expeditionary troops, and 鈥渓ots鈥� of Special Operations forces combined with 鈥渁ir power.鈥�
鈥淚 think we could do this again if we had NATO backing and if France invokes Article 5,鈥� he adds. The US would also need to 鈥渞eknit鈥� the Sunni Arab forces in western Iraq that stood up during the tribal awakening of the Iraq War, but then became disillusioned and marginalized under the Shiite leadership of the former president of Iraq.
Defeating IS would require 鈥渕ore than 20,000 [US] troops, but I don鈥檛 think it would be much more than that.鈥� It would take 鈥渁bout 15 months,鈥� Mansoor estimates.
After the fighting ends, US forces should quickly get out. 鈥淎rab forces could stabilize the places IS once occupied鈥� after US forces defeat it, he adds.
鈥淭he lesson I learned from Iraq is that you cannot put governance in place when the security situation is out of control,鈥� he says. At the same time, 鈥渁lmost everyone in the US would agree that the occupation of an Arab country just isn鈥檛 going to work, no matter how much we鈥檇 like to do things ourselves.鈥�
Mr. Obama has said that he is open to thoughtful ideas, but has considered ground troops and, with input from his military commanders, rejected the idea.
鈥淔olks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f they think that somehow their advisers are better than the chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate.鈥�
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter for his part met with military commanders Wednesday, according to Pentagon officials, 鈥渁sking them to consider where the coalition effort in Iraq and Syria can be expanded.鈥�
