Islamic State 101: three tricky problems for US military campaign

The campaign to train Iraqi and Syrian fighters to take on the Islamic State will be long and difficult. “This will not look like ‘shock and awe,’ ” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Senate committee Sept. 16.

Here are what are likely to be the top three trickiest sticking points for the US military campaign in the months to come:

3. Persuading Iraqis and Syrians to 'own' this fight

Alaa Al-Marjani/Reuters
Shiite fighters, who have joined the Iraqi Army to fight against militants of the Islamic State take part in field training in Najaf Tuesday.

Author Thomas Friedman has a “famous saying that no one in the history of mankind has ever washed their rental car,” Dempsey told lawmakers. This means that those who make the decision to fight IS have to “own it,” he said. “Ownership is ultimately what measures commitment.”

But the Iraqis and Syrians fighting IS might not always have the same goals as US forces. There are no guarantees, Dempsey acknowledged, that the Free Syrian Army might not use its new training and weapons, courtesy of US taxpayers, to fight Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad instead of IS.

The hope is that the program of recruiting these fighters will help  “develop a military chain of command linked to a political structure,” Dempsey said.

This means “a chain of command responsive to some Syrian political structure, not responsive to us. These can’t simply be surrogates and proxies. They have to be tied, linked to some political structure that ultimately could assist in the governing of Syria when finally the Assad regime is either overthrown or, through the negotiation, is changed.”

The key “in what we’re trying to do here,” Dempsey added, “is build a force that can, over time, actually contribute to stability in Syria – not just fight.”

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.