You can't destroy ISIS with bombs alone

Last week president Obama declared that the objective of the world’s greatest superpower is to “degrade and destroy ISIL” (ISIS)…without putting US military “boots on the ground”. 

Newsflash to the White House: The “degrading” part is easy – knock out a few tanks, some Humvees kill a few thousand fighters, and ISIS is certainly “degraded” in comparison to a few minutes ago. 

“Degrading” makes good television. It provides nights after nights of billowing smoke with pyrotechnics, war correspondents in blue helmets and vests shouting into mics as they flinch with every explosion and finally, a victory speech with the president posing against a backdrop of a burnt out convoy of various vehicles, on a long and winding road, declaring “mission accomplished”, or something like that.

“Destroying” however is far more difficult to accomplish…and even more difficult to prove.

Let’s start with how one defines “destroy”. Does that mean that the US and its allies have killed all 30,000 plus fighters in the ISIS military? 75%? 50%? But 50% does not qualify as “destroyed”, does it? And with most of the ISIS army scattered in mainly urban areas, including cities in both Syria and Iraq, is the US Air Force really going to drop one ton bombs on residential areas – risking a horrible count of innocent dead civilian?

Or is “destroyed” defined as killing or capturing Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the brutal head of ISIS, together with his top lieutenants? Maybe…if you can find and identify him! While Israel proved in the recent Gaza war that the latest electronic warfare devices are generations improved from the ones used just a few years ago, they were almost useless without professional, highly trained and competent human “eyes on the target”. AKA – “boots on the ground”. 

As Stratfor, the “geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world” (www.stratfor.com) noted last week:  “the United States has an array of options when it comes to operations in Syria. These include everything from limited decapitation strikes to a more comprehensive campaign that would target significant concentrations of Islamic State forces, their energy infrastructure, supply depots and logistics networks across Syria and Iraq. But even a more comprehensive campaign would be limited. This is especially true in terms of dislodging Islamic State forces from cities, where the United States will be reluctant to bomb for fear of causing collateral damage (something the Syrian and Iraqi air forces have proved far less worried about).

Because of this, air power alone will not significantly degrade the Islamic State. In fact, air power faces limitations in almost any situation. A ground component will be necessary to make any real progress against the Islamic State.”

From the myriad of talking heads on the Sunday talk shows, as well as Obama’s speech to the nation last Wednesday, we learned that the absolutely necessary “boots on the ground” will come from hastily trained, so-called “moderate” Sunni rebels and members of the long-defunct and dubiously loyal: Free Syrian Army (FSA).

I understand that the FSA promised on their camel’s honor that unlike the last time we provided them with weapons to fight the Assad regime, Hezbollah and the Jihadist groups in Syria, this time these shiny new US weapons will not be immediately sold to the ISIS generals. 

I certainly hope so. Because remember – these are supposed to be our “ground component”, our “boots on the ground” and our “eyes (and laser pointers) on the target” – without which, as we saw above in the Stratfor analysis – the air strikes will not be able to make any real progress against ISIS.