Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Warfighting
The Coalition That Isn’t

Is General Dempsey chomping at the bit to go kill Arabs? Not at all. He is simply worried, as a competent military professional ought to be, that the anti-ISIS coalition-building effort the President announced in a primetime Oval Office speech on September 10 is not going so well. Actually, it’s going so very not well.

Published on: September 17, 2014
show comments
  • There is, of course, a third option. Rather than continue sending sons to die exchanging bullets with barbarians, rather than spending trillions in never-ending Industrial Age wars, rather than sacrificing the never-to-be-born children of Americans killed in “wars” Western pols have no intention of winning, it would behoove leaders and voters to educate themselves on the realities of tactical nukes – not Hollywood’s version – and decide to use Information Age weapons, and the seriousness of the message using them sends, to annihilate what is a clear and present danger to civilization. Truman understood that these weapons save lives. Ike’s “massive retaliation” policy (Dulles, CFR, 01/1954) recognized the same. Enemies we defeat in total war ALWAYS are better-off down the road: Would you rather be in Japan in 1965 or Vietnam in 1995, each 20 years post-hostilities? http://inthisdimension.com/2014/09/02/wars-costs-and-weapons/

    • LarryD

      Not likely under current circumstances, especially given the Progressives victim worship.
      Of course, circumstances can change. (cf http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html) A big enough attack, and the majority of Americans won’t care whether tac nukes or fuel air bombs are used, as long as the perpetrators are “most sincerely dead”[1].

      1. Wizard of Oz; The Wicked Witch is Dead

  • Anthony

    “It this were an adult administration in terms of process and craft….” Frankly, what more needs to be said in terms of the coalition that isn’t? The question: must Americans fight Sunni, Shia, et al battles in region in which our long term interests may be changing. In other words, must our soldiers engage to make Levant safe for inhabitants while potential beneficiaries expend proportionally little blood? ISIS extirpation by U.S. alone…. “…It would also feed Arab grievance culture in a most unhelpful way and redirect the ambient hatreds festering in the region away from local antagonists and towards us. What’s a super power in 21st century to do?

    • Arkeygeezer

      “What’s a super power in 21st century to do?”

      We might consider backing off out of Iraq and Syria and embark on a policy of containment. That policy was pursued against the Soviet Union for years with success.

      We have no Arab allies that are willing to fight ISIL/ISIS/IS on the ground.

      We have no other allies willing to fight them on the ground.

      The only foreign troops on the ground are Iranians fighting with the Kurdish pesh merge.

      We have no way to conclude a war against the Islamists in an Islamic land.

      The only thing we can do is order U.S. men and women in uniform to sacrifice their lives to back up the bravado of the Obama administration and fellow traveling Republicans.

      • Anthony

        Arkeygeezer, there is nothing cited above to dispute (or disagree with). Moreover, your first bullet point is not only correct but sound policy analysis (given we are not privy to NSC documents). Essentially, I agree.

        • Arkeygeezer

          I suspect that we will end up with a policy of containment. The administration says it has over 40 countries that have agreed to join the U.S. in fighting ISIL None of them want to put troops on the ground.
          The Congress will authorize financial support to train Syrian rebels for 3 months. It is impossible to train a rebel army in 3 months.

          So what we probably end up with, is a coalition surrounding the Middle East which will contain the fighting to the Islamic countries in the Middle East.
          If this is the administration’s plan, I support it.

  • johngbarker

    The decision to go to war is not always a rational calculation and may be beyond the control of government officials. If there are other 9/11’s, the nation may be gripped by war fever and demand a terrible vengeance.

  • adk

    “What will he do?” My bet is on nothing other than airpower. If he’s really lucky, there will be another big overseas crisis (between China and Japan perhaps?), and all the MSM attention will shift again. Just like Putin and Ukraine went below the radar after this ISIS thing.

  • Duperray

    “ISIS troops have melted away into the civilian population…”. What else does blind West need to finally understand that all Middle-East (non-Isaraelian) populations are always united against West, despite superfical disputes? Trying to split “bad” from “good” is the fundamental error we made for decades. Containment, expelling Middel-East residents living in our countries by a no-return program is the only way to make West safe. By the way, during WW2, US citizens of japanese origin were treated as potential interior enemies: Not good, but effective, anyway better than risking a civilian War with religious motives.

  • benfdc

    Great analysis, Adam, but geez, ripping off a Chicago Shorty tune without giving the man credit is kinda low. http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858792764/

  • Corlyss

    “The Coalition that isn’t”

    A perfect match for the indispensable leader who isn’t.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.