Short on early successes, Pentagon in for long haul against Islamic State

U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin cautioned against expecting quick progress in the campaign against Islamic State militants. He predicted the jihadists will be 'much degraded' a year from now.

Ten weeks into its war against Islamic State extremists, the Pentagon is settling in for the long haul, short on big early successes but still banking on enlisting Syrians and Iraqis to fight the ground war so that U.S. troops won't have to.

The U.S. general overseeing the campaign on Friday predicted that the jihadists will be "much degraded" by airstrikes a year from now, in part because he is focusing attacks on those resources that enable IS to sustain itself and resupply its fighters.

On Friday, for example, the U.S. military said one of its six airstrikes overnight in Syria hit several IS petroleum storage tanks and a pumping station — sites that are central to the militants' ability to resupply their forces and generate revenue. Likewise, it said two coalition airstrikes in Iraq damaged or destroyed IS military targets near the contested town of Beiji, home of Iraq's largest oil refinery.

In his first public overview of the campaign he leads from the Florida headquarters of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin cautioned against expecting quick progress. He said he cannot predict how long it will take to right a wobbly Iraqi army and build a viable opposition ground force in Syria.

"The campaign to destroy ISIL will take time, and there will be occasional setbacks along the way," Austin told a Pentagon news conference, "particularly in these early stages of the campaign as we coach and mentor a force (in Iraq) that is actively working to regenerate capability after years of neglect and poor leadership."

While hammering the jihadists daily from the air, the U.S. military is talking of a years-long effort — one that will require more than aerial bombardment, will show results only gradually and may eventually call for a more aggressive use of U.S. military advisers in Iraq.

"This isn't going to get solved through 18 airstrikes around a particular town in a particular place in Syria. It's going to take a long time," the Pentagon press secretary, Rear Adm. John Kirby, said Thursday, referring to a recent concentration of American airstrikes on the Syrian city of Kobani, near the Turkish border.

That is one reason why the Pentagon is preparing to set up a more formally organized command structure, known in military parlance as a joint task force, to lead and coordinate the campaign from a forward headquarters, perhaps in Kuwait. On Wednesday it formally named the campaign "Operation Inherent Resolve."

As of Thursday the U.S. had launched nearly 300 airstrikes in Iraq and nearly 200 in Syria, and allies had tallied fewer than 100, according to Central Command. Those figures don't capture the full scope of the effort because many airstrikes launch multiple bombs on multiple targets. Central Command said that as of Wednesday, U.S. and partner-nation air forces had dropped nearly 1,400 munitions.

Officials say the strikes have squeezed IS and slowed its battlefield momentum. More specifically, they claim they have destroyed an array of Islamic State military targets: command posts, sniper positions, artillery guns, armed trucks, tanks, mortar positions, buildings, mobile oil refineries and more. The Pentagon has shied from providing a body count, but Kirby said several hundred IS fighters have been killed in Kobani alone in recent days.

Yet the militants are making gains in some parts of Iraq, particular in Sunni-dominated Anbar province, even as they stall or retrench in other areas. At times they have appeared within reach of taking control of Syria's Kobani. Baghdad is not believed to be in imminent danger of falling but it is "certainly in their sights," Kirby said.

Some U.S. analysts call Obama's approach overly cautious, given the comparatively small number of airstrikes launched thus far and the president's refusal to involve U.S. soldiers more directly in the ground war.

Calling it an "unserious air war," analysts Mark Gunzinger and John Stillion of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments wrote this week on the center's website, "In the end, no matter the reason, the timorous use of air power against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria is unlikely to reduce the territory under their control, curb the brutal murder of innocent civilians or prevent the creation of a sanctuary for an enemy that has sworn to continue its fight on a more global scale."

Others take a more approving view.

"The air war is really degrading their infrastructure," said Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who just returned from a trip that included a briefing at the U.S. air operation center at al-Udeid air base in Qatar.

"At some point in the next several months, they are not going to have tanks, they are not going have (U.S.-made mine-resistant vehicles), they are not going have the stuff that they stole from the Iraqis. They are going to have AK-47s," he said, and at that point Iraqi and U.S.-trained Syrian opposition fighters can make inroads.

AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian contributed to this report.

Online: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.