Slate's Fred Kaplan: Obama at War

[flpoljunkie]

The president outlined a reasonable strategy for attacking ISIS. What could go wrong?

by Fred Kaplan

So, the cause is just, and Obama’s plan sounds reasonable, even nuanced. What could go wrong? Well, as anyone who’s studied the region (and the cavalier predictions made, time and again, by Westerners who go to war there), everything.

Obama made very clear that this battle requires active participation by the Saudis, Turks, and Europeans. But the roles and missions haven’t yet been outlined; the commitments aren’t quite carved in concrete. The plan has a chance of succeeding in Iraq because the new government, formed by Haider al-Abadi, seems inclusive, embraced by Sunnis and Shiites, for the moment—but it could fall apart with the bombing of a single mosque or a marketplace, and then what? Will it look like the Americans are advising and bombing on behalf of a Shiite regime? Will the other Sunni nations back away, fearing the association?

As for Syria, the endgame is unclear. If the Free Syrian Army can’t get its act together, despite all efforts, will Obama step back from that terrain and focus again on Iraq—or will he be tempted to escalate and take on more of the fight alone from the air? Obama is allergic to “mission creep” (and that’s good), but he has said that this war will go on for a while; his advisers were recently quoted as saying at least three years. Where will the next president take the fight? To draw a Vietnam analogy (which, granted, should not be stretched too far), will he or she be Lyndon B. Johnson to Obama’s John F. Kennedy? (JFK sent only advisers to Vietnam, refusing to deploy combat forces.)

Meanwhile, Obama is doing as close to the right thing as the mess of the Middle East allows. And maybe he’ll pull it off. But all tragedy is enmeshed with noble causes and good intentions; it wouldn’t be tragedy without them—it would only be farce. This battle is not a farce. It will take massive political effort, delicate diplomacy, and enormous luck to ward off tragedy. It’s worth a try.

[frazzled]

1. The first wise analysis I've read on all this

I always trust Fred Kaplan to provide a nuanced, fact-based, well-informed, and thought-provoking account of geopolitical situations: even if, as in this case, he is on the fence about this mission. (As he says, even Obama is on the fence about this mission, it being the last thing he probably wanted to get dragged into.)

But nobody here is going to read Fred Kaplan. After all, he only has a Ph.D. in political science from MIT, has won a Pulitzer Prize for "War and Peace in the Nuclear Age," has written on military strategy for the country's most prestigious outlets, etc. They will rather prefer to read the reductive, purple prose of someone with the initials WRP, who is expert in .... well, nothing to do with any of this.

But I appreciated the chance to read this. Thanks for posting.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Thanks. Am obviously a Kaplan fan, as well.