US Policy Toward Iraq (and Beyond)

For John, BLUF:  When there are not good options it is sometimes best to do nothing until things clarify.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Michael Totten, writing at World Affairs Journal, predicts:

Still, it’s only a matter of time before we get sucked in kicking and screaming one way or another. Because the Middle East isn’t Las Vegas. What happens there doesn’t stay there.

The red highlighting is from someone I know, who went on to ask "Should the United States become militarily reinvolved in Iraq, and if so, why, where, when, how, with what forces and resources?"  This person then went on to give a short summary of the problem faced.

Carl von Clausewitz said it best in his classic On War: “Everything…is very simple, but that does not mean that everything is very easy.” Chess, for example, is child’s play in comparison, because games within games plague most of the Middle East and all are related. Every game is played simultaneously on the same regional board. There is no limit to the number of players, who may participate singly or form teams, but who is on which side often is ambiguous. No two players start with pieces of the same quantities and qualities. Every player places different values on his own pieces compared with those of opponents, partners, and neutrals. Whole piles of pieces, not just one at a time, shift suddenly in any direction at competing commanders’ whims, without regard for mutually agreeable rules. Players, pieces, values, and rules are subject to unannounced change. The main aim of the game is to match realistic ends with measured means, minimizing risks in the process.

OK, there is the challenge.  Before you read further, pause and ask yourself what YOU would recommend to the President of the United States with regard to Iraq.  Got you strategic advice in mind?  Here is mine:

This is the 100th year of the Great War, which has mostly been settled in Western and Central Europe, but not necessarily Eastern Europe and the Levant.  There have been several efforts at sorting out the demise of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, and none has been final.

Our ability to kill people and break things is not in doubt.  Nor should be our ability to quickly concentrate forces.  We are second to none.  The question is, who do we support and what will we get for it.  The chart from Think Progress, which I will blog later today, shows how complicated the relationships are.

Our interests are keeping Jihadist terrorism away from our doorstep, ensuring the survival of Israel, keeping Turkey secular, keeping oil flowing and keeping the Suez open.  A lot of this is diplomatic heavy lifting.

I think the President is correct to do little (ISR,♠ logistics support and Special Forces aside) at this point.  I think Nir Rosen is right to say that as ISIL approaches Baghdad the Shiite Iraqis will stiffen up and prevent their area being overrun.  Our job is one of support.

The sorting out ongoing might well give us a more stable overall area.

Muddling through isn't always the worst option.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.  Think drones and U-2s and spooks.