I have asked before and now I ask again………
Just once….someone have a plan!
There has not been a major terrorist attack in awhile now and the world is not thinking about it right now. No, they are thinking about elections or fired bureaucrats or nukes or…..well you got the picture right?
But while we are laser focused on other situations the war on terror rages on and one….now I want to ask….what is the plan to defeat ISIS and the after time?
I keep asking what the plan could be because eventually someone will have a plan and all my questions will be answered…..(Really? I am old, do I really have that much time to wait?)
(Pause here for some thought….not that anyone will take the opportunity to do so)
The plan so far is as follows……
The U.S.-led strategy to defeat the Islamic State (IS) — a hybrid insurgent-terrorist group that as of mid-2016 controls territory in both Iraq and Syria — has been criticized for a lack of clarity, overemphasis on tactical objectives, and insufficient attention to the underlying causes of the greater civil conflict across both Iraq and Syria. This report assesses the current strategy and presents three options for a new strategy. Each of these options, derived from subject-matter-expert input, represents a broad strategic approach to defeating IS. Continuous counterterror focuses on containing and suppressing IS while accepting ongoing instability in Iraq and Syria. Practical stability seeks to reestablish the pre–Arab Spring order in Iraq and Syria, building stable states at the probable expense of democracy and human rights. The report recommends the third option: Legitimated stability. This approach pursues a long-term strategy that seeks to address the root causes of the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, reconciling the disenfranchised Sunni Arab populations with their governments, and thereby removing the conditions that allowed IS to emerge and thrive. Other alternatives that fail to address root cause issues are likely to condemn the U.S. and its allies to continual crisis and unpredictable and unending reinvestment of resources, with little real gain in security or reduction in international terror.
There it is….the strategy.
Not one of the so-called experts has bothered to think of a couple of things…..if they, ISIS, is defeated then what?
The RAND group has made a few recommendations…..
- The National Security Council should lead a full-scope, bottom-up review of the strategy to counter IS. This review should address specific issues with the current strategy, including a lack of internal consistency in objectives, poorly defined objectives, and a narrow focus on defeating and destroying IS with insufficient emphasis on changing the conditions that allow such groups to exist and thrive.
- The best way to reduce and, eventually, end insurgency and terrorism is to address root causes or, at least, to establish legitimate and capable governance. Stability is most consistent and enduring when it emerges naturally from popular satisfaction with governance and other socioeconomic conditions, rather than from government oppression or military action by external powers.
- The legitimated stability option acknowledges that the best way to reduce and, eventually, end insurgency and terrorism is to address root causes or, at least, to establish legitimate and capable governance. The aim of this strategy is to establish legitimate governments in Iraq and Syria. Each government would be capable of addressing Sunni disenfranchisement while protecting the rights of all other groups. Ultimately, strong and legitimate central governments — perhaps federated or confederated to address regional challenges within each state — will reduce the current, dangerous emphasis on ethnosectarian identity politics and violence.
I cannot emphasized enough that there must be a plan or this scenario will continued to be replayed over sand over….
We should demand an end to the “Bait and Switch” attitude that we have been employing now for over a decade.
This attitude has accomplished nothing!
We are better than this.
And the peasants could care less.