Shortly after Pearl Harbor Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall tasked then Brigadier General Eisenhower to provide a strategic assessment of the situation faced by US Army Forces Far East, trapped in the Philippines by the Imperial Japanese Army. Eisenhower studied the problem and several days later told Marshall there was no possibility of successfully reinforcing, or rescuing, those forces. Every course of action was beyond the US capability, would result in greater losses, and would further delay any other effort to conduct combat operations against either the Japanese or the Germans. In short, the only reasonable strategic course of action was to accept the loss of those forces.
That’s what hard strategic assessments look like.
The situations in Syria and Afghanistan are analogous. And then there’s China.
In Syria, the US accomplished its original objective: the Islamic State has been defeated and ISIS has – more or less – faded back into the shadows. Is ISIS gone? No. But fighting ISIS as a global terrorist network and fighting ISIS in Syria are two separate things.
But, meanwhile, Russia remains in position in Syria – something accomplished during the Obama Administration. Iran also remains entrenched in Syria, also accomplished during the Obama Administration. The dictator Assad remains in power – with his chemical weapons. The Iranian’s proxy – Hezballah – also has firm footings in Syria. Changing any of that would be expensive and very difficult.
Meanwhile, groups we’ve supported in Syria – Syrian Kurds and the Syria Democratic Front (SDF) for example – remain vulnerable. And beneath the SDF lies Syria’s oil deposits, land Assad will not surrender.
So, what to do?
Before answering that, there are a few other issues to consider.
Afghanistan: 17 years and counting. Al Qaeda (AQ) leadership has been repeatedly attacked. But AQ now is larger than it was in 2001, and has spread across much of the Mid East and North Africa. And the Taliban control perhaps half of Afghanistan, though that number changes frequently.
More to the point, the Taliban, and al Qaeda, have Pakistan. When we invaded Afghanistan the Taliban sought sanctuary in Pakistan. Their leader – Mullah Omar – remained in Pakistan, a de facto government in exile, until his death.
Usama bin Laden also sought sanctuary in Pakistan in 2002, and except for occasional trips into Afghanistan, remained there until killed by the US in 2011.
It’s a virtual certainty Pakistan wasn’t (and isn’t) simply knowledgeable but in fact also supportive of both Taliban and AQ presence in Pakistan.
Then there’s China, its pawn North Korea, and China’s efforts to establish hegemony over South East Asia, and the Western Pacific. And let’s not forget Russia.
So?
The Mid East: the US must no longer “go it alone.” We need a treaty organization with our Arab allies, analogous to NATO, a Gulf and Red Sea Treaty Organization, if you will. It would address the multitude of problems in the Mid East, deal with current and future terrorist organizations, and contain Iran (and Syria).
Pakistan has played the US for 17 years, but also played the US off against Russia during the 80s and 90s. That needs to end. The only long-term solution to Afghanistan means addressing Pakistan. Afghanistan, Pakistan and China all require the US developing a close relationship with India. Any other course is folly.
China is the great threat of the 21st Century; they’re dangerous now and will grow increasingly so in the future. They represent a huge, multi-faceted problem – political, economic, social and military; this must be our main focus. China needs to be confronted and contained, rather than being alternately coddled or ignored as we have for 40 years. This will require substantial investments in national security infrastructure.
Or, we can continue our current course in Syria and Afghanistan, one that has cost the US several trillion since 2001; engaging in vague strategies that result in “forever war,” bleeding the treasury dry, while we ignore the major strategic threats facing us.
These aren’t easy choices, nor will they yield pleasant results. Previous administrations wasted multiple opportunities to more readily address these threats. Now the world is a far more dangerous place than the media, or Presidents Clinton or Obama, suggested it was, in large part due to their negligence. We face a multitude of threats; we must accept certain risks, construct hard-nosed strategies worthy of the name, and change course accordingly.
Copyright 2018 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com