ISIS continues to be successful, despite the presence of powerful enemies that all but surround it.
The New York Times recently reported that “Islamic State militants [have] staged attacks near Baghdad and the Libyan city of Surt … underscoring the group’s persistent strength on both fronts despite a months-long American-led air campaign against it in Syria and Iraq.”
The factors behind ISIS’ success are a combination of cold self-interest on the part of one nation and questionable policy choices on the part of another.
IRAN GAINS
Who profits by the continued existence of ISIS? Iran is an enemy of the ultimate terror group, but the Tehran regime is gaining in regional influence and in the spread of its armed forces across the area in its activities to oppose it. The fact is, ISIS has been a great geopolitical gain for the Mullahs. While Iran has taken some military action against ISIS, it has no real vested interest in seeing the group wholly eliminated.
OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS ALLY WITH ISIS
Unlike al Qaeda, which did not succeed as anything other than a terrorist organization, and the Taliban, which is centered in distant Afghanistan, ISIS has provided a territorial and funding structure which other regional terrorist groups can profit from. The March 7 “pledge of allegiance” by Africa’s Boko Haram demonstrates the significance of ISIS’ unique structure. Earlier this year, Boko Haram “pledged allegiance” to ISIS, and Breitbart reports that Al-Shabaab may do the same.
WASHINGTON’S POLICY ERRORS AND LOW-KEY MILITARY RESPONSE
Washington’s policy choices loom large In the face of this growing alliance of terrorist organizations, and the rise to regional dominance by Iran.
Spine surgical stabilization can be necessary due to the generic for cialis instability caused by the tumor itself or surgery to remove it. tadalafil 60mg try description There are some terms that are attached with the medicine and dose and the description of disease. It is a physical change that comes with aging. generic viagra cheapest A man starts getting harder in the bed and achieving viagra prices canada rock-hard erections to satisfy his lady in the bed.
The premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq gave rise to the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish. President Obama’s decision to assist in eliminating the regime of Muammar Gaddafi gave ISIS a path to both Europe and Africa. The announced withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, the non-response to the attack on the American facility in Benghazi, the failure to act upon the violation of the “Red Line” in Syria, and the refusal to adequately support U.S. allies in the region has left pragmatists in the Middle East and Africa with little confidence they can face down ISIS armed might. Combined with the inability to prevent the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, American influence in the region is clearly diminishing.
Indeed, the insufficient U.S. military response to ISIS’ gains has been noticed across the world, both by friends and enemies. The International Business Times reported that President Assad stated that “U.S.-led airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Syria have made no difference on the ground.” The Guardian reports that “US-led air strikes in northern Syria have failed to interrupt the advance of Islamic State (Isis) fighters. “ CNN reports that members of ISIS claim the air strikes are “trivial at best.”
Senator John McCain has complained that U.S. air strikes “lack vigor.” Speaking during May on the CBS news program “Face the Nation,” McCain noted that “We need to have a robust strategy…We need more troops on the ground. We need forward air controllers. But just referring to airstrikes, do you know that 75 percent of those combat missions return to base without having fired a weapon? It’s because we don’t have somebody on the ground who can identify … a moving target. … We found in Vietnam that if you don’t have the right strategy, airpower is minimal in its effect.”
The Wall Street Journal called early American efforts “The Unserious Air War Against ISIS.”
The criticism is not centered on the success of the air strikes that have been conducted, but on the fact that there have been too little of them, particularly when compared with average daily airstrikes during the Bosnian conflict and the Gulf wars. There has been some Special Forces activity, and more U.S. “advisers” are to be committed to the effort, but the failure to truly commit adequate strength to the effort is noticeable by friend and foe alike.