In the aftermath of the attacks in Paris, Beirut (which received virtually no media coverage), and now San Bernardino, Calif., terrorism is in our consciousness. The immediate reaction from almost all of us is one of revulsion and anger.
{mosads}After 15 years of war, the use of multiple strategies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, and now the regional crisis created by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), we need a new strategy. I wrote several months ago about the need to reassess our national defense strategy, and I continue to believe that is the proper course — with a few new twists.
If we trace our recent history from the first Gulf War, then to Iraq and Afghanistan, and finally to the current Middle East crisis, we see a consistent pattern. We must recognize that, in fact, we have not been successful in utilizing traditional military strategies such as boots on the ground to achieve long-term results. We have not had surrender by the insurgents in Afghanistan or Iraq, and certainly ISIS is an unlikely candidate. Rather, unlike Japan’s and Germany’s surrender in World War II, this is a constant guerilla war. Our troops have been successful so long as we have had massive numbers on the ground, but as soon as they are reduced and eventually withdrawn, the battleground reverts to chaos.
Much has been written about changing the nature of war. We suffer from the same issues with ISIS as we did in Vietnam 50 years ago: In part, we cannot tell who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. In addition, today we have groups switching sides (initially fighting with us and against Syrian President Bashar Assad and ISIS, and then moving to support other players), the entry of Russia and the failure to develop a military coalition.
We also need to analyze the changing strategic value of the Middle East to the U.S. Some would say our allies still need the oil and we need to preserve the world economy for our own economic interest.
We have two interconnected but independent battles to address. The first is ISIS as an internal U.S. terror threat, and the second is ISIS’s involvement in the Middle Eastern battle zones.
As a former member of Congress who voted against the renewal of the Patriot Act, I did so on the basis that it was too broad, and clearly the intelligence agencies were largely unfettered and unfocused, as many of the disclosures displayed.
Nonetheless, to combat the ISIS threat on the home front, changing circumstances require a change in thought, analysis and tactics. The recent call by Republicans to slow down the immigration process is not unreasonable; the pending legislation to modify or eliminate the visa waiver program also should be enacted. It is hard for me to believe that we will be able to vet thousands of people and ensure that they do not have ISIS sympathies. This will surely be an arduous and expensive process and will likely still result in the occasional admission of those intending to do us harm, as many of the refugees may not have easily discoverable histories.
A more difficult issue is how to handle U.S. citizens. In my view, the U.S. should ban travel by U.S. citizens to any countries designated by the Department of State as having terrorist connections, with criminal penalties imposed if the ban is violated. There is certainly a risk that innocent persons may be negatively impacted by such a ban; thus, we need to put in place an advocacy system to resolve any conflicts.
Let’s also ensure that those on the no-fly list cannot purchase guns.
To combat the battle-zone threats, first, we should enhance and expand the authorization allowing the use of drone strikes against any target engaging in terrorist activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (for which we have evidence), or contemplating the same against the United States or our allies. Second, the secretary of Defense’s recent announcement of the deployment of special operation to target ISIS leaders is a clear multidimensional approach that should be supported. Third, we should continue the bombing campaign. Fourth, if ISIS is contained geographically, then we should impose a strict economic embargo on the regions over which ISIS has control.
I remain firmly opposed to additional boots on the ground, as in my view, it has not worked as a long-term strategy for at least the last 55 years.
This will be an evolving process with moving targets, so most importantly, we need to maintain our agility in responding to new iterations introduced by ISIS or any new terrorist group. Let’s not rely on government too much; we can all play a role — stay alert, pay attention and report what doesn’t pass the smell test. Not a sophisticated approach, but you get the message.
Owens represented New York’s North Country from 2009 until retiring from the House in 2015. He is now a strategic adviser at Dentons out of its Washington office and a partner in the Plattsburgh, N.Y. firm of Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane, Kelleher & Trombley, PLLC.