Speak Plainly and Lead
Point of Decision’s anniversary contest challenged writers to evaluate the current state of western (particularly US) policies in the Greater Middle East. Identify what has been successful, what problems remain, and potential solutions.
As a nation and and a country, we have all of the talent, tools, and technology to be a global leader of solutions around the world. However, we have struggled mightily to understand the dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa. This post is not academic in nature and is riddled with plain language and lacking in buzz words and wonky language. This post will mostly focus on U.S. and coalition strategies in the Middle East.
In full disclosure, I am by no means a MENA expert or a strategist, just a part-time military officer and casual observer of the on-going train wreck of U.S. Strategy in the Middle East. First, criticisms contained herein are not a criticism of the valor, honor, and fidelity of the humble servants of the diplomatic corps, intelligence services, or military. While there have been numerous tactical flaws in our history post 9/11, the glaring and on-going failure has been in ill-defined and poorly communicated strategy.
General Ray Thomas, the newly appointed SOCOM commander, spoke recently in an interview with West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center. He highlighted an issue that I think is at the crux of our inability to reach desirable end states in the MIddle East. “From a leadership standpoint, if we can’t explain to the nation, to subordinates, to the collective whole what we’re trying to accomplish, then our strategy is by nature ill-defined and harder to achieve.” See the full interview (Runtime 16 minutes).
The United States needs to assume the global leadership role that it can and needs to play. It needs to speak plainly to its allies and frenemies in the region, providing diplomatic, economic, and military leverage as necessary to align regional powers towards solutions that allow for long term sustainability of the region. There are numerous threats, though ISIL certainly is not an existential threat to my peace and happiness in suburban America (for now), they are a reminder of the true costs of losing wars. Generally over the past one hundred years of large scale warfare, the costs to the losers or conquered nations were not at the punishing level inflicted by ISIL. Rape, pillage, and murder on a wholesale level are the price the conquered paid for thousands of years, it is unfortunately a tragic reminder of what happens to countries/people that lose wars. The United States and allies goal should be to prevent minor actors from becoming system interruptions such as ISIL, an inability to predictively combat these threat or to reduce them before they become existential threats to our allies will continue to undermine long terms stability.
The United States … needs to speak plainly to its allies and frenemies…
History points towards global or multinational coalitions that best provide the means to impart solutions at a regional or global level: The coalition that defeated Napoleon, the Allies (with Soviet frenemies) that defeated the Axis powers, and UN forces. The Middle East solutions require a lot more than just defeating ISIS. We inadvertently or accidently co-opted the peace and solutions in the Middle East to Iran and their buddy Russia, and can either allow that trend to continue or provide a counter influence.
Say What you Want to Say and Let the Words Comes Out
It would be refreshing for national security leaders to, Call it like it is, but be humble. Speak plainly and back up your words with action, covertly and overtly. The Obama administration while well intentioned has degraded US capacity and credibility by failing to act and enforce standards on actors and governments that behave badly e.g. use chemical weapons on own citizens. At the same time it would be incorrect to ignore the hubris of past administrations and pre-emptively declaring mission accomplished in Iraq. The institutional doublespeak common in our national security leadership undermines credibility not just internationally but to our own rank and file. A recent demonstration of this lesson not learned is the State Department declaring their bringing of peace to Syria in 2015.
Don’t sugar coat it, granted this type of communications doesn’t have to be overt or open, but tell your enemies the potential consequences and enforce them. Tell your friends to knock off their bad behavior (House of Saud, what up). Challenge conventional thinking among your peer nations, remind your allies and partner organizations that they have to enforce their charters. Come on leadership, just channel your inner thoughts and be brave, it can be oddly freeing. The American people are oddly attracted to potential political leaders that surprisingly tell things the way they seem them even if demented and odd. Our citizens deserve leaders that will tell them the truth, if we want a world free from terrorism it’s going to take a long time and demand expending treasure and blood. Time to get off the failed Powell Doctrine Kool-Aid, maybe if we did it right in 1991 there would be a different situation today. Our strategy has to see beyond the next election. Lastly, if we’re at war, let’s do it right, stop using blanket authorizations of force to allow never-ending quasi-wars such as Operation Re-branding XVII. Our allies and our nation need leadership that will plainly state the facts and call things the way we are. Don’t dance around saying that our soldiers are not in combat operations instead of inadvertent combat during partner and support operations. The political message cannot wag the strategy, be a leader for own forces and partnered nations to emulate.
“Got myself a big stick swingin’ in the dirt”
Whether you support the 3rd Offset strategy or whatever you want to call it, we have to be able to technically and tactically crush our adversaries as a Military. The national command structure also has to enable military and diplomatic leaders to unleash all the tools of the toolbox (within reason) and exercise initiative within the commander’s intent. The Middle East may be our current proving ground of readiness and training, but it won’t be the conflict that decides the future of America.
Our hardware, training, and capabilities need to be ready to not only crush the current ‘enemy’ but to ultimately win the wars our nation will face in the future. Failing to win the war against a near peer in the future would be an existential threat to the American way of life. The administration’s preference for unmanned aerial vehicles, precision strike, and direct action raids has generated many statistics and results, yet as General Thomas mentioned, counter-terrorism is a “niche” toolset, and it is likely foolish to believe that it will adequately prepare our force and our military for larger conflict. In a conventional or hybrid or grey zone conflict of the near future, individual strike or tactical actions will not be able to be approved by national command level entities. There are conflicts on going such as the war in Ukraine which demonstrate lessons that our force need to be ready to implement. The weapons systems and tactics for counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency should not dominate our doctrine, equipment, and procurements. Also the F-35 provides a cautionary tale of how not to do a technological offset program. The interoperability and communications processes that the Military has learned during global terror operations can have lasting positive impacts on the force, but only if applied and adapted for likely future conflicts.
“Nothing Lasts forever, not even”
There has been some peace in the Middle East, sparingly over the past years. History is not on the side of peace and prosperity in that region, but never before has the world been poised to allow for long term stability in the region. Generally the ROI in Middle East states is pretty terrible, periods of strong man “peace” aside, generally it’s been a very turbulent, violent, and unpleasant place for many residents. Let’s take a look at our super-friends, British forces have now fought in Iraq and Syria in WWI, Interwar years, WWII, Police Actions in the 1950s, Desert Storm I, OIF or Operation Telic, and now in Operation Inherent Resolve. The US has had a regular and recurring investment forward staged in the Middle East for almost 30 years now. That’s a lot of investment for little return, might be time to figure out how to change the dynamics that generate those threats. Part of speaking plainly and committing to long term solutions is to recognize and communicate internally and externally that generational commitments are required to effect lasting changes. The strategy should determine an end state that allows for the flexibility in accomplishment to reach an end state. All diplomatic options should be explored including leveraging nations to re-draw lines and establish nation states that may better align for future peace and prosperity including the ability for an independent Kurdistan and other states. Our policy and strategy should be flexible enough to adapt to likely changes including scary scenarios such as a destabilized Saudi Arabia or being prepared for situations such as the collapse of Yemeni government that occurred last year.
Mike Denny is an Army National Guard aviation officer and company commander. Formerly, he served as a Field Artillery officer while on active duty. As a civilian, he is an executive management professional and occasional contributor to Task and Purpose, The Bridge, and Red Team Journal. The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
