Analysis of the US official highlights defeat Daash and addresses causes the presence of ground troo

very optimistic about the future of the liberal world order, but sadly described the challenges facing the system before the United Nations General Assembly in September / September 2015.
Obama says "may Tzhbna dangerous currents of the new world towards more darkness and chaotic." The threat of the organization «Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant» (which is known for short as «Daash» or «Islamic State») is nothing but a stream of those currents, but it is certainly the most immediate threat, which is a false state with the private its army, and you get the funding, and enjoy ideology attract people to join them on the basis of religion, as well as the ability to carry out terrorist attacks collective, or inspiration, anywhere. Besides that, they go bankrupt regional countries that are trying to deal with it and provide a pretext for the intervention of Russian regional destabilizing and enhances the focus of Damascus and Tehran.
US officials have repeatedly emphasized, starting from President Obama, that the mission of the United States is not reflected in the containment of the organization «Islamic state» but in the "defeat" and "destroyed".

In this context, said US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter twice saying that we "in a state of war" with al «Daash». Given the organization's ability to inflict damage to the other party, this policy is a wise policy.

But after 18 months to send the first American troops to Iraq to face the organization «Islamic State», these forces did not succeed in eliminating the organization or even to contain, as recently reported about Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford.
The most striking is that it can be said that the United States has needed to destroy the organization means by the current policy of air support, training programs and equipment aimed at building local allies, as well as strikes Special Forces, but [all this] will not succeed unless accompanied it Some US ground troops at least.

However, stuck to the US administration by refusing to send ground troops to participate in the conflict, even while investing the frequency of other types of military force, including Special Forces advisers closest to the front, and teams raiding of special forces, and attack helicopters of the model "Apache "aircraft and" AC 13 "armed targeting oil tankers fleet organization« Daash for. »

In his speech to the nation delivered on 6 December / December, Obama gave the following reason for preventing the ground forces of intervention: that their use would lead to "a long and costly ground war."

He continued, saying, "If Ahtlina foreign lands, [it will be] organization« Islamic State »can continue in the insurgency for years, which will result in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers, and the depletion of our resources."

In saying this he was referring to former US President George W. Bush in the Iraq war as a warning, which is convincing for most Americans who do not want other similar war.
For those of us who worked with Obama, do not constitute any argument put forward by surprise. Vhkukh toward a clear military action in his emphasis on ending the US wars and his unwillingness to military action against the use of Syria's chemical weapons in 2013. summed up this point of view the best face in a speech in front of "West Point" Military Academy students in 2014 when he said " Since World War II, did not produce some of the errors, the highest costs, we have made for restraint, but our desire to rush to enter the military adventures without thinking of the consequences. "

And thus the US President gave option as an option firm includes: a military force as Obama sees with a very light touch, basically it is a campaign against those carried out by the organization «Qaeda» and of the bombings; as this option includes the launch rare ground attacks, and supporting local forces (with only limited success so far, such as what happened in gray) or return to the wars waged by the former President George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If this option, between Obama and Bush, reflecting the fact, the appropriate decision under normal circumstances would choose Obama's approach and hope that, lead Indirect measures and moderation, the "long term" as well as emphasize the US administration to eliminate the organization «Daash» .

However, due to the "serious currents" recognized even by the US president, is a powerful currents Increasingly, the conditions are not normal, at least according to the definition given by the United States of the word after the "cold war".
At that instant the happy period, America did not experience any existential threat, it did not have its army from undisputed, and the structural and wide-ranging global security is stable in spite of local threats, and most importantly, they all Washington's military commitments of Bosnia and access to northern Iraq called wars are optional. And as such, it had to be justified, not only through an end to violence or defeat aggression, but through the realization of the social and political goals as well. Michael Mazar has written an accurate account of this process in the journal "Foreign Affairs" two years ago.
This reflected the height of the armed improvement in Bush interventions that followed the events of atheist of September / September in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been fully explained to those involved in the conflicts that the ultimate justification was not only regime change, but [an] societal transformation, even if that requires a large-scale counter-insurgency campaign against the rebels, who were not convinced the American social Balheiaeliat made.
Obama believes that if the United States has stepped up its operations against al «Islamic State», particularly through the participation of ground forces, will run the country again in the same direction. But this argument skew recommendations on the use of forces, and the mix between the use of American power to defeat the discount poses a threat to and between operations aimed at dealing with the consequences of this defeat.
First, most of the proposals on US ground forces are not defending the idea of ​​sending large numbers, but to send a special force to deal with the specific military situation the United States faces with the organization «Daash.» Just as all the forces that now defends against al «Islamic state» is a regional, it is for the majority of the forces that would launch attacks from the area where the other will be as well.

But in order to accomplish the task of the US president in defeating al «Daash», the massive ground forces must be controlled on the territory of the organization and eliminate the organized forces.

The reasons for the lack of allied local ground forces with the United States in Iraq and Syria only limited success in such offensive operations, not political goals agree, the soul low morale, leadership and weapons and weak skills, coupled with the inability to cope with the organization «Islamic State» fighters steadfast The well-armed and who have experience and who are willing to die without causing significant losses in their ranks.
For this reason, calls for many commentators and critics, including retired Gen. Jack Keane, to send ground US force limited composed of several brigades (each consisting of 5,000 combat troops in addition to the logistical support) on standby to provide quick elitist reserves be ready to promote any attack or for his leadership in the event of a slowdown. Mission is to take charge of local and regional troops will not lie, but strengthened. As is the case in many other conflicts, Such forces will serve as pillars to mobilize contributions "NATO" forces ("NATO") and some of the best local forces.

And enjoy the American units and formations of NATO, "NATO" local forces and high-level skills in offensive operations quick decisive weapons combined (Almchah- Almadrat- Madfieh- Alengah- air) of your dreams most established regional forces and local militias, which depend on the United States today. In spite of that organization «Daash» includes 20 to 30 thousand fighters, according to most estimates, but they are scattered in surroundings similar to Texas in terms of volume compared to the hundreds of thousands of troops surrounding them.

Given that the areas are generally open, and the presence of full control of the US forces and coalition air, and the distances involved in this conflict, can not be dispersed to the various factions that support each other quickly.
Thus, the presence of several US brigades consist of 5,000 troops, and enhanced with other NATO, "NATO" forces of first-class and equal numbers of local forces that have received better training, it is likely they will overtake almost in numerical terms, the strength of the fire, and air power, and movement , logistics, the factions of the organization «Islamic state» will face. Even President Obama agreed in a press conference held in Turkey in October / November as the United States can eliminate the organization «Daash» quickly if resorted to the American ground forces. For his part, Carter reiterated this position in his statement before the US Senate in the next month.
The United States ground forces put on the table will be reflected through the other two effects positive on the fight against the organization «Islamic state campaign.» First, it will end the absurd logic: the United States asserts that the battle to combat the organization «Daash» is their own war, however, ask the other troops, far less ability, to suffer heavy losses by attacking the organization «Islamic State» while not risking is even one soldier in what goes beyond a small number of special forces. This is not what the United States has done in Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, and it is unlikely that such an approach leads to attract enough competent forces willing to fight under the leadership of the United States.
Second, the tightening repeated the US administration on the things that will not be carried out by the United States (especially when opinion polls indicate that most Americans want to see US act more violent), it appears to friends and adversaries alike that the US president is not serious about the issue of defeating al « Daash ». Reducing means in any specific military intervention gives the impression that avoid costs or obligations is the one who is a top priority instead of the desired task. In this way, it is allowed to impose restrictions that result.
In order to justify its failure to send ground forces policy, President Bush invoked the nation-building in the former Bush administration experiments, which included the killing of thousands of soldiers and years of insurgency.

But this argument involving two coats of disadvantages: First, if Obama is serious about eliminating the organization «Islamic State», with the intervention of American ground forces or without, will face a big problem after that point when it becomes a secret organization. This is exactly what happened, and without ground forces, after the United States forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan and destroyed the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's regime. In short, the argument of "nation-building" only be logical if the President really does not intend to do anything more than contain the organization «Daash» and Hhalth.
Secondly, it is possible to avoid the need to resolve the problems that will emerge in the "next stage" through [intervention] US forces. Although the US forces adds a unique offensive capabilities of its kind in any battle, but the first priority in any scenario following the battle, any land conservation, can be achieved through local ground forces, supported by the Air Force and logistics American and advice. As we are witnessing today, we cling to its positions in the face of the organization «Islamic State» mixture is homogeneous of Iraqi forces from first class to third class and various militias and local police and Sunni tribes and different groups of Kurdish fighters with the support of the United States, at a time when can organize «Daash» Created take down an army of 20 to 30 thousand fighters. Thus, similar arrangements will succeed certainly against what is left of the organization.
It must be pointed out that the counter-opinion to this argument is based on the principle associated with former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who says that you "if I broke something you pay for." I have spread this idea in the debate before the invasion of Iraq. If the United States decided to engage in a war of choice when there were other options available, and during that destroyed the state they provide basic services, at least for millions of citizens, according to the argument, we have the United States process and ethical obligations to remain in the country and repair the ravaged. But this is not simply thinking applies in the case of the organization «Islamic state.»

Coping with this group is not a war the United States fought choose, but necessary war. As the destruction of the so called state, although it will create a vacuum in governance in areas controlled by the organization «Daash» now, it will not result in any moral obligation for the United States to stay in as an occupying power.
The scenario of the post-intervention involves much more than just land insurance, as well as include the provision of emergency relief and medical care to a large number of the population supply, and the establishment of local government quickly, and the integration of the liberated areas in the largest policy structures, including the Baghdad government in Iraq and whatever come for the international peace negotiations in Syria. It must be all these things coverage through active diplomacy to overcome the corrupting regional countries, or at least neutralized, and the involvement of the international community, international organizations and NGOs.

And enjoy the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, and thus a wide experience in other places in the Middle East and the Balkans. Thus, there is no need because the United States play a key role in this effort over the long term, especially with the presence of troops, unless they seek to achieve transformation, in areas of Iraq and Syria, where he dominated organization «Islamic State» earlier, on the target-style who were seeking him in Iraq between 2011 and 2013. But the United States, which now has the largest of its experience in Iraq is supposed to wisely do not try to talk another democratic transition in the Middle Eastern community in the middle of the violence prevailing environment (which was the real reason for the survival of the United States in that region).
When Washington dealing with the "defeat al« Daash »" and "then" Kaamlitin distinct but linked, then can be assessed - the cost and benefits of the use of American ground forces to defeat the organization «Islamic State» - equably. Because of the costs, and loss of life that are inevitable and the unknown things that will occur when these forces are involved in the confrontation, highlights is always the risk that things go wrong. Perhaps the United States can afford to live with the organization «Daash» and avoid risky in happier commitment period when there are no significant security issue really.

But the world is now in another era, the United States can remember unfortunately. During the speech delivered by President Obama during receiving a "Nobel Peace Prize" for 2009, summed it beautifully: "not international institutions alone ... is that have achieved stability in the world after World War II. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is that the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. " It was not only refers to the drones and ammunition fired from a distance of 15 thousand feet, or special forces, consisting of 12 men teams.

James Jeffrey is a distinct fellow at the fellowship, "Philip Solondz" at the Washington Institute and former US ambassador in Iraq and Turkey. This article was originally published on the website of "Foreign Affairs".