Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Community Organizing Against Terror
In a short span of a holiday weekend, the world watched an ISIS-inspired gunman shoot up a cafe and synagogue. ISIS members also beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in Libya and burned 45 people to death in Iraq. This came on the heels of ISIS burning a Jordanian pilot to death in a cage and emailing American hostage Kayla Mueller’s family pictures of her dead body. Jordan responded with massive air strikes, as did Egypt.
Barack Obama responded with a selfie stick and golf.
On Monday night, State Department spox and Gap sales associate Marie Harf sat down with Chris Matthews, who asked how the current administration plans to stop the terror. Harf’s response was enough to make anyone go full Scanners: “We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war.” Nazi Germany would have been relieved to hear that, but Harf continued.
“We need, in the longer term, medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…” At that point Chris Matthews’ eyes glazed over, but Harf kept at it:
We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people. You’re right. There is no easy solution in the long term to preventing and combating violent extremism. But if we can help countries work at the root causes of this? What makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business? Maybe we can try to chip away at this problem, while at the same time, going after the threat; taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners around the world.
It isn’t a new revelation that Harf and this administration believe that the war against ISIS is not a war against terrorism, so this isn’t just a minor slip. She was revealing the Obama Administration’s only strategy for combating Islamists. Obama’s response after the massacre of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists was to call for a community summit to combat violent extremism. This administration is convinced that the road to defeating radical terrorism is no different than standing on a street corner with a clipboard.
The White House believes that poor, angry kids join ISIS because they don’t have jobs or economic opportunity and that somehow, if only the countries where fighters are radicalized and recruited had a banana stand or a mall in which to work, ISIS would cease to exist. This is an administration that, as Dan McLaughin of Red State put it on Twitter, “doesn’t believe in nation building but believes ISIS can be defeated by nation building.”
They believe this because Obama has spent his entire professional career community organizing a poor, angry populace who feel they have been wronged by an unfair economic system. Obama thinks ISIS exists in the same bubble of society that is angry about their hourly job at McDonald’s; burying children alive and torching people in a cage is just their way of expressing frustration. But ISIS doesn’t exist in Obama’s world of class warfare — they operate outside of it.
This administration fundamentally misunderstands ISIS’ beliefs because they themselves do not possess a core belief structure. Team Obama wants to community organize the world in order to shame Islamists into submission, because it’s the only thing the person in charge knows how to do. Obama thinks all ISIS wants is a living wage and some free birth control. But you can’t fight terror with Alinsky tactics. You can’t shame ISIS with class warfare because the structure in which ISIS believes isn’t based on economic class.
ISIS doesn’t care about capitalism. They don’t care about the electric company turning off their power or a garbage service refusing to pick up because of unpaid bills.
Harf and the administration are trying to write off ISIS as a product of poor economics when their entire belief structure isn’t based on capitalism. She flippantly describes ISIS fighters as “17-year-old kids who pick up an AK 47 instead of starting a business,” but ISIS isn’t recruiting fighters from the slums of southside Chicago. They are recruiting from mosques, academia, high technology, and the wealthy. ISIS doesn’t care about a living wage or whether HealthCare.gov is working. They don’t promote on performance; they promote on loyalty to the cause.
Obama has backed himself into an ideological corner by ruling out ground troops to defeat embedded ISIS strongholds because six years ago he ran on stopping war and withdrawing troops. The President is trying to defeat a brutal enemy the only way he knows how: by community organizing them to death. It is not going to work. ISIS will not be eliminated if instead of dropping bombs on their heads, he drops job applications.
Obama is the one constant in a world falling apart. He falls back on the only thing he knows how to do. The problem is that Saul Alinsky’s instruction manual doesn’t have a chapter on how to handle Islamic caliphates.
Published in General
That’s funny.
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
Mike,
What a great Tecumseh quote. I’m going to make use of this one.
I love it!
Regards,
Jim
AIG, you’re being daft. Yes, Bush believed in (and tried) nation-building as a long-term solution to Islamic terrorism. But that which preceded nation-building was incredible, swift, and decisive violence. Remember, the main of those wars was each over in a matter of months. Obama has been pin-prick bombing ISIS since August or September–far longer than it took U.S. forces to conquer either Iraq or Afghanistan in whole.
Following the decisive use of military force to wrest control from our enemies, the U.S. then applied many years of policing actions, mopping up resistance and fighting new enemies who challenged U.S. authority.
Thus, to claim that Bush’s strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan was based in a belief that we could not “kill our way out” is to ignore the fact that the military’s role in those conflicts was primary, even if the long-term goal (which Obama abandoned, of course) was to create stable, free, and fair governments and economies in those countries.
Really, I can’t believe you’re even suggesting that Harf’s comments are an endorsement of the Bush doctrine. They’re nothing of the sort. Bush favored action, not mere words. Harf supports endlessly talking the problem to death through White House summits, Twitter campaigns, and extended pressers.
The trope is annoying but useful for their side because it’s a good distraction or segue to something they want which they know is irrelevant and/or hopeless.
Thus we hear about fighting the root causes of poverty, or we hear that we can’t cut our way to prosperity (spending cuts). Saying that we have to prevent radicalism to fight ISIS is like saying we had to prevent racism to fight the Nazis.
Calling this Sunni vs Shia is a fundamental misunderstanding on what ISIS is or what their goals are
Look I’m not saying whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.
I think both the idea of “nation building” and “kill them all” are bad ideas…and won’t work. And they haven’t worked, because both have been tried.
What I’m saying is that this is essentially the same strategy as Bush’s “nation building” and “hearts and minds” etc. It’s the same thing.
So, ISIS is different from AQ now?
So we’ve now discovered “shades” of Islamic terrorism. One shade responds to “nation building”, but this other one doesn’t.
Did ISIS attack the US? No it’s not like 9/11 at all. They’re fighting and killing each other over there. Yes, there’s the occasional terrorist attack here and there, same as as been happening for 40+ years. But it’s not like 9/11.
It’s just a false comparison.
Bush’s “hearts and minds” strategy was precisely the response he thought would bring the Arab world into the 21st century, by bringing them “democracy” etc., so they wouldn’t be radicalized.
Obviously, that was a silly idea then, as it is now. But it’s the same idea.
So, what’s going in Iraq right now then? No “violence” against ISIS, from both the US and our allies and Iraqis?
Pretty sure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t over in a matter of months. Pretty sure we’re still fighting in both, 14 years later.
Pretty sure we’re bombing ISIS right now. Actions.
So what kind of “actions” do you want? Go in an re-invade Iraq? Go in and invade Syria?
No thanks.
From August 8 to January 13th (the last numbers I could find), we have carried out an average of 32 strikes per day, and about 190 sorties per day.
This is about the same number of sorties flown during Enduring Freedom.
In the meantime, we’ve killed about 6,000 ISIS fighters.
Ti’s but a pin-prick!!
AIG,
The problem of ISIS requires foresight. History is replete with examples in which evil was allowed to metastasize, and then, with regret, the good guys have to make herculean efforts to prevail, when with a bit of foresight and timely action the problem could have been overcome with much less loss of life and treasure. I’m sure you know these examples.
The hard part is to know when we have arrived at such an historical fulcrum point. Is ISIS an evil that could be dealt with now at minimal cost, but if allowed to spread and internationalize will be hard to defeat? That’s how I see it. I can’t prove that I’m right. Given the president we have, I hope and pray that I’m not.
I absolutely do want troops on the ground. ISIS could be surrounded and killed in short order with a well-thought out military operation that is not merely a half-measure. The corollary benefits we would receive as we regain our reputation as an enemy to be feared and a friend who can be depended on would be of incalculable worth.
Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the beheadings, burnings, entombings, crucifixions, and female slavery.
I’d need to see a citation on these figures. The best info I’ve seen on Operation Inherent Resolve is about 25 sorties per day. Of course, Enduring Freedom was not an air-only war, so a comparison of the two is not particularly helpful.
The figure of ISIS fighters killed is going to be a bit rough, as we don’t have a body count, there are no official figures, and we don’t even know the allegiance of the people whom we have killed. And even if it’s correct, so what? We haven’t accomplished much except to push them back in Kobani. It’s really something when the world’s most powerful military can count one little town as its greatest victory against a bunch of psychopaths using our own weapons.
Meanwhile, ISIS has adapted to our air-only approach and is making it more difficult for us to find targets.
If we don’t change our strategy, I’m going to put my money on ISIS to win.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/operation-inherent-resolve-an-interim-assessment
I agree. All these comparisons aren’t useful, but since people insist on comparing things on the bases of 1 or 2 numbers…I gave them what they wanted.
But neither is this war one of only air. There is an Iraqi army and Kurdish army on the ground fighting.
The main challenge in this campaign is the distances involved, the fact that ISIS is a rag-tag group of fighters which makes it hard to even find targets in the first place.
And of course, they are incomparable because the technology used is different from 2001, so fewer strikes are needed to hit a target.
It’s not an air only approach.
Considering that they’ve already lost big time to the Iraqis around Baghdad, to the Kurds in the north, and to the Kurds in Kobane (a big part of which was due to US air strikes), I wouldn’t bet money on that.
Again, a lot of empty words, a lot of “we need to do more”, a lot of “foresight, will” etc etc. No alternatives, no recognition of the type of challenge, no recognition of the actual fight going on…and of course the usual “this is all half-a**ed” critique, without actually saying how, why, or what you’d do different.
So…what’s this “well thought out military operation”? Clearly, the 6 gazillion times this has been said in conservative news sites…must mean that conservatives have figured out this “well though out operation” by now.
I’d love to hear it.
PS: saying that we need to go invade Syria and Iraq again…is not a “well thought out military operation”, in case we didn’t figure it out the last 2 times around.
AIG, the “hearts and minds” comparison is the false one. The difference is the context in which the strategy was discussed. No, ISIS did not attack America but they did kill American civilians and kill other innocent civilians in an intentionally provocative and barbaric manner. And this woman suggested it’s because they couldn’t get good jobs at home! Bush never said anything that ridiculous. The “hearts and minds” strategy was not a means to make excuses for Al Qaida.
She didn’t say that, and no there’s really no difference between this and “nation building”. And no she’s not making excuses for AQ.
The “nation building” strategy was meant to create the conditions where radical Islamism wouldn’t thrive. She’s saying exactly the same thing.
I hope you are right. We’ll know more in two years time. Nothing will change till then, unless ISIS makes so much progress that even Obama won’t be able to ignore the threat. Or maybe by then they will have been degraded and defeated. Let’s hope.
I’m a bit puzzled by this post. Empty words? I said what I’d do differently. What don’t you get about my call for a US led ground operation to surround and destroy ISIS? What do you want from me, a detailed operational plan? I’m only a guy writing on Ricochet, not the commander of CENTCOM. When I call for a well-thought out plan, I’m not agreeing to supply it. If doing so is a requirement of commenting on Ricochet, then 98% of all comments, yours included, should be deleted. Rather, I’m basing my assertions on the opinions of any number of military and intelligence experts who believe that this war cannot be won from the air. I find their arguments compelling. You are free to disagree. But maybe you should supply a detailed plan including all the targets you think they should hit in the months ahead and I might be more inclined to believe you.
On the specifics, I don’t think it’s debatable that if Obama had acted sooner, back before ISIS took Falujah and Mosul, back when the whole outfit consisted mostly of convoys driving across the empty desert, we might have been able to destroy them from the air. But back then they were just the JV wearing Laker uniforms. Now they are a much more formidable adversary. And I submit that it is not hard to predict that they will morph into other more sophisticated threat postures as they react to our current air campaign. I don’t know exactly what forms these threats will take, but it stands to reason that if they are not killed they will continue to do what they do. The fact that they are killing Christians in Libya is a sobering development. At least I’m sobered by it. Are you? Is Obama? Where will they spread to next?
“the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether…”
She did say that.
Did the Japanese Army attack the US at Pearl harbor?
Yes, I suppose I do :)
Sorry I don’t mean to give you a hard time, but saying “lets get ground forces in there” isn’t a “well thought out plan”. It’s just words. Easy enough to say, but given the terrible mess on the ground, I’m not sure sending in anything short of a full invasion force is a good idea.
And that, isn’t a good idea for other reasons. Primarily, that there’s no clear path to victory.
No I don’t disagree. But this war isn’t being fought only from the air. Lots of fighting on the ground. Let the Iraqis and Kurds do the fighting. It’s their turn.
Fallujah and all these places have been under constant for years. It never stopped there. Iraq was fighting the Sunni extremists there long before ISIS appeared.
This isn’t…our fight. It’s their fight. And I’m more than happy to let them do the dying and killing.
I really don’t think it’s our problem. If I’m being honest.
So did Bush. So at best, you can argue that she’s repeating an old and tried, and failed, idea.
But I heard a few posts back that ISIS is not like the Taliban or AQ. It’s a different animal entirely.
Now its back to being the same thing?
Sorry, can’t vouch for that. I know you got a lot going on, so I’m not piling on. Just drawing a handy parallel. It’s only half-valid, but there’s a point in there which is not meaningless. Others differ — I have long considered all of this just different fronts in the beginning of a long war.
Beginning? I seem to remember Tom Jefferson having been involved in this war.
Well, for that matter, Vlad the Impaler was no slouch.
Their goal is world domination. That is hubris and hyperbole. What matters is what is happening on the ground. The overwhelming number of casualties is from Sunnis killing Shias and vice-versa. The targeting of Christians and Westerners has been very small in comparison, though effectively shown to create fear on social media.
We could look at almost any problem in the world as “not our problem” if we define “our problem” somewhat narrowly. Is Ukraine our problem? The Somali pirates? Colombian drug cartels? Israel vs. Hamas-Hezbollah? The Iranian bomb? China vs. Taiwan? What about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? The German-Russian invasion of Poland? What makes any of it our problem? Or is (was) none of it our problem until they are at our shores?
The reason I talked about foresight (of which you were dismissive) is that the job of the civilian commanders is to understand what happens not just if we do, but also if we don’t respond to such crises before they become something very different from what they seem to be in the early stages. They must consider both the costs of action and the costs of inaction. They must consider current threats and emerging threats.
The job of the military is to have the plans and force structure ready to carry out the mission assigned to them. I would bet the ranch that CENTCOM has a detailed plan to defeat ISIS ready to be deployed today, if only they were ordered to do so. As soon as they share it with me, I’ll share it with you.
I am just as happy as you are to let them do the fighting and dying. But they have to win or I won’t ultimately be happy about it. We are not doing much to help them win.
I know, 27 strike sorties per day. We could do a hell of a lot more. Tens times as much per day. If we can’t identify 200 targets per day, that itself says something about the effectiveness of the air campaign. If we kill 6,000 jihadis in 6 months but they recruit 7,000 more, that is not an effective campaign. If we kill 40,000 in 6 months, game over.
First you say she didn’t say that. But she did. Then you say Bush said so too. I don’t think he ever said Al Qaida fighters joined due to lack of jobs at home. His statements and initiatives about spreading democracy and alleviating poverty were much more general and not made in the context of recent attacks.
You might argue his methods, but Bush left no doubt that he was entirely serious about doing everything he could militarily and every other means including “hearts and minds” to make Americans safer at home. This administration does not project that priority. Her statement mis-states the motives of ISIS fighters, forms a pitifully weak response to actual warfare, and “repeats an old idea” as you say which the administration is unlikely to even try to implement because Democrats ridiculed it in the last administration.
So at best I can argue that her statement shows lack of seriousness.
AIG, I think you’re giving far too much credit to the administration. You’re claiming that the very people who voluntarily ended Bush’s efforts at nation-building are actually serious about nation-building. The Obama administration will say anything to shift the conversation away from (1) Islamic fundamentalism as the root cause and (2) military action as a solution. The Harf’s of the world, however, never address a threshold issue: how you get economic opportunities to people who are governed by a gang of slavers and rapists whose highest priority is finding more suspected suspected homosexuals to hurl off tall buildings?
And, let’s not slander the policy of nation-building writ large and declare it failed because Iraq and Afghanistan are not Jeffersonian democracies after a decade of American occupation. Germany, South Korea, and Japan are extraordinary counter examples to your claim that nation-building doesn’t work. The failure of American will in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly has a lot to do with the “failure” of those countries, if we can call them that. Certainly, ISIS would not have invaded Iraq with an American ground force present, so Obama is as much to blame for Iraq’s recent collapse as anyone in the world.
That said, I don’t want another ground war in Iraq. The solution is not an easy one. Sure, we could beat ISIS. I have no doubt. But what do we do with the (primarily Syrian) territory we just conquered? How do we quell the terrorist rebels that we just unseated from power? How do we put together this place we just blew up?
I agree that the main force needs to come from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. But the U.S. should organize it. We should provide them with a real air campaign that is designed to put the lights out for good, not just keep ISIS at bay. Obama isn’t doing any of this. He’s leading from behind, i.e. not leading.
It becomes our problem when it affects us and its in our interest to affect the outcome.
Second issue: how much is it in our interest?
Third issue: how much are we willing to invest to affect the outcome?
Frankly, the answer the answer…for me…for 95% of the issues raised here…is somewhere very close to 0.
I’m sorry. I really don’t care that they killed Egyptians in Libya.
Well, that was easy! Just say “hey guys, have foresight!”, and problem solved.
Why 10? Why not 100 more per day? 1,000 more per day?
War apparently is really easy to fight: just do more.
Sorry if I’m being snarky, but this is a very complicated issue, which requires professional military to figure out…being reduced to a few meaningless words like “have foresight” and “do more”.