Islamic State 101: three tricky problems for US military campaign

The campaign to train Iraqi and Syrian fighters to take on the Islamic State will be long and difficult. “This will not look like ‘shock and awe,’ ” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Senate committee Sept. 16.

Here are what are likely to be the top three trickiest sticking points for the US military campaign in the months to come:

2. Who are the 'moderate' Syrian rebels?

Edlib News Network ENN/AP/File
This 2013 photo shows soldiers for the Nusra Front, and Al Qaeda affiliated rebel group in Syria. Lawmakers do not want US weapons falling into their hands.

The CIA recently bumped up its estimates of IS fighters from its earlier rough count in the 10,000 to 20,000 range to about 31,000.

The Department of Defense has requested $500 million to train and equip a “moderate” opposition. The Pentagon estimates it can train about 5,000 fighters over the course of one year. This, not incidentally, makes the cost of training each fighter roughly $100,000, Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia noted Tuesday. It will include small arms, communications equipment, vehicles, and instruction.

Finding moderates isn’t easy, lawmakers repeatedly pointed out. For his part, Senator Manchin worried aloud that the “weapons and training will probably be used against us in the future.”

Secretary Hagel tried to reassure the senators that the Pentagon would do its best to keep this from happening. “We will monitor them closely, to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, ISIL, the Syrian regime, or other extremist groups.”

That said, he warned that “there will always be a risk in a program like this.”

Dempsey surprised a number of lawmakers, however, when he said that he didn’t think finding “moderate” Syrian fighters “will be difficult, actually.” The key, he warned, will be finding them “in the right numbers,” suggesting that too few exist for the Pentagon’s liking.

On the plus side, he said, the Pentagon will be recruiting from the “displaced” population, so it “won’t be as though they’re giving up the security of their families to come train with us.” Saudi Arabia has agreed to host the training.

2 of 3

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.

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