My must read of the day is "A Generational Challenge," by Chuck Freilich, in the American Interest:
President Obama’s plan for dealing with ISIS is a step in the right direction, albeit one that doesn’t go far enough. That’s because ISIS is the symptom and immediate threat, not the primary problem: The Middle East is a fundamentally ill region, one that has repeatedly exported its problems to the United States and the rest of the world and will continue to do so for decades. Iran’s Islamic revolution, Saddam’s rapacious Iraq, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas, the slaughter in Syria, Darfur. The litany goes on.
Despite the president’s repeated efforts to deny it, the bitter reality is that the West is embroiled in a normative and strategic conflict with much of the Islamic world, a conflict that it did not seek but is nonetheless underway. […]
It’s time to realize that we are in the midst of a generational battle, and that the U.S. and West simply do not have the luxury of disengaging from the Middle East, pivoting to Asia, avoiding "stupid wars", and just hoping for the better. To ignore this harsh reality is to invite the next ISIS—and these movements will get progressively worse.
ISIS is the immediate threat and must be dealt with effectively, but we should view our efforts to deal with it as part of a much broader and multi-dimensional effort.
Last night, the United States along with five Arab nations began carrying out airstrikes in Syria. It was not particularly surprising, we knew this was the next step, but now the obvious question, one that has been asked since the president outlined his strategy to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), remains—will this be enough to actually destroy ISIL?
Airstrikes in Iraq may have stopped some of the group’s expansion attempts and kept them from taking Baghdad, but after six-weeks the strikes have not done much in terms of crushing the group.
Airstrikes and Iraqi/Kurdish boots on the ground haven’t been sufficient yet, so why would the airstrikes in Syria be enough?
The problem in the Middle East is multifaceted and complicated, and ultimately the solution will be too. The threat the United States faces, whether it’s specific groups like ISIL or the ideology at large, is not going to be short lived.
Even if we wanted to, the United States cannot walk away from this region. There’s far too much at stake and it’s imperative that we remain involved; but there is no way the current plan is going to be enough. If we want to seriously discuss destroying ISIL, we need to start talking about something much more comprehensive, something like the points laid out by Freilich—targeted airstrikes certainly won’t solve this.