Editor’s note: The following is an opinion piece. The writer is not employed by Military Times and the views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Military Times or its editorial staff.

After more than a year of effort, U.S.-backed forces in the Middle East — supported by U.S. military advisers, special operators on the ground and tens of thousands of airstrikes — have ejected ISIS from their so-called Iraqi “capital” of Mosul and their Syrian “capital” of Raqqa.

The most important question: Has this use of the U.S. military made America safer? Sadly, the answer is unambiguous: No.

The U.S. armed forces exist to protect and defend the U.S. and our citizens. They should be used only when vital national interests are at stake — and even then, only when all other measures to preserve our security have been exhausted.

The American taxpayers ultimately provide the financial means to build and support these forces, and we send our men and women to fight, and if necessary die, to defend America and the Constitution. However, service members shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice their blood and limbs to send “messages,” to prop up foreign governments, or to help various rebel groups around the world accomplish local political objectives.

By these standards, the hard-fought military successes our forces have enabled in Iraq and Syria have at best been sacrifices made on behalf of other nations, not the U.S. At worst, they’ve been prolonged strategic failure.

With the tactical defeat of ISIS — depriving the group of land, not life — there is now a window of opportunity to limit further damage and preserve U.S. military strength: U.S. forces that were deployed to Iraq and Syria to battle ISIS should be redeployed to the U.S.

RELATED

There are those who believe that the U.S. military should remain, in perpetuity, throughout Iraq and even Syria. Many of these pundits and so-called “experts” claim that ISIS arose because President Obama didn’t leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and instead withdrew them all in 2011. I have previously written in detail why this belief doesn’t hold an ounce of strategic water, but the idea of leaving U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria makes less sense now than at any time since eliminating those responsible for 9/11.

Using the U.S. military in the Middle East is like sticking a fist in a bucket of water. When the strong fist goes into the bucket, the water is powerless to resist and immediately dissipates.

Everywhere the U.S. military has gone in the Middle East, there have been no powers that can stop them. But like that fist, as soon as forces withdraw, the “water” flows back, and no evidence remains that the fist was ever there.

There is no timeline that changes this fact — this will be the case regardless of how long our troops remain in the region.

When the U.S. surged 20,000 troops into Iraq in 2007, bringing the total to more than 160,000, the insurgency was dramatically beaten back, and the level of violence waned. Barely three years after their departure, the “water” rolled back in and internal violence resumed, this time in the form of ISIS.

Lest anyone mistakenly believe ISIS wouldn’t have arisen had Obama kept 10,000 U.S. troops deployed, it is important to note that the disintegration of the Iraqi Army in June 2014 occurred because the political leadership in Baghdad systematically purged the Sunni leadership within the force and filled the top ranks with cronies who were given patronage jobs. This purge fatally weakened the Iraqi army, and it wouldn’t have mattered if 20,000 U.S. troops had remained — the army would still have disintegrated.

Now, U.S.-backed forces have driven ISIS out of their Iraqi capital of Mosul and from the Syrian headquarters in Raqqa. Some may be tempted to suggest the U.S. should stay for decades to prevent the cities from returning again to violence. Keep the fist in the bucket, the thinking goes, and the water won’t return.

But ethnic, religious and political conflicts in the region wouldn’t be solved by an extended presence. Already, we see reports of friction between Shia and Sunni in Mosul, of civilian counsels competing for control of Raqqa (if it can be protected from outside interests), and of attacks on U.S.-backed Peshmerga forces after the Kurdish vote for independence.

More to the point: There is no U.S. national interest in ensuring one faction defeats another. We helped both the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga, yet now they’re fighting one another. Whose should we help now? Who should we abandon? No matter the choice, when the U.S. military fist is withdrawn, the water of chaos will return.

And U.S. interests will remain unchanged.

We should offer diplomatic services where they are necessary to achieve our objectives, but we should not choose sides in internecine conflicts that will not be solved by our military power. We should cease sacrificing the lives and limbs of our service members to prevent warring factions from killing each other, and instead reserve the best military in the world to provide safety for Americans. That would allow us to rebuild our military strength for the possibility of future fights that have a direct impact on our national security.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis (Courtesy photo)

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Army lieutenant colonel who retired in 2015 after 21 years of service, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter (@DanielLDavis1).

Share:
In Other News
Load More