Pentagon’s “Devastating” Plan for Crushing ISIS Fails to Live up to Its Name

Donate

1

Written by Sophie Mangal; Originally appeared at GlobalResearch

The U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had presented a preliminary version of the Pentagon’s new plan to rapidly defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria during a meeting of the White House Principals Committee, a Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said оn February, 28. The plan involves making a “devastating impact” on the terrorist group.

According to Davis, the document calls on all the branches of the U.S. government, diplomatic, financial and intelligence elements of national power as well as cyber-security agencies to unite and intensify joint actions. The plan is transregional and is aimed at defeating such terror groups as Al-Qaeda and ISIS around the globe. It also proposes to increase the U.S. military contingent in Syria and to cut off terrorists’ funding.

However, after close examination Pentagon’s proposals raise a lot of provocative questions and may come in for sharp criticism.

First of all, some Western experts say the increase of the U.S. troops in Syria will not contribute to the establishment of security and stability in the country. On the contrary, it will lead to further escalation of tensions and deterioration of the security situation. The experience of Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that it is not a good idea.

About five hundred American soldiers including U.S. SOF have already been deployed to Syria. Analysts believe that with the implementation of the proposed plan this number may rise up to five thousand. This may also result in loss in personnel and materiel, to say nothing of possible refusal from participating in the peace negotiations. We speak here about several opposition groups set against the United States, such as Ahrar al-Sharqiya.

Second, there are doubts about the effectiveness of the former Obama administration’s counter-terrorism efforts. The U.S. House Homeland Security Committee reported more than once on the sources and possible methods to counter the growing income of the terrorists.

Meanwhile, the problem of financing terrorism in Syria and Iraq has not been solved yet and it is still present. The DOD has revealed no breakthrough solution having reduced its efforts to cutting off terrorists, targeting oil-refining infrastructure of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, imposing sanctions on those buying oil from the Islamic groups, blocking financial channels in cyberspace and stopping illegal trade of cultural heritage artifacts. The reasons that have been preventing the U.S. authorities from achieving results in this direction so far remain a mystery.

Third, the Pentagon didn’t miss the opportunity to request additional funding for its ‘devastating blow’. As a result of the approval, Trump’s Defense-Heavy Budget Plan may incur additional costs. This is what will probably happen in the near future, as the President has repeatedly announced plans to increase Pentagon’s funding by $54 billion.

Fourth, the plan does not stipulate the cooperation with other concerned states, which may lead to severe repercussions. The Islamic State skillfully uses the friction between its adversaries and will not miss the opportunity to draw the consequences of reckless American invasion against the White House.

The U.S. spin doctors, who hide destructive actions of the U.S. on a global scale by casting a false light on it, try again and again to draw the attention of the public. Could the new plan be just another publicity stunt? Will the U.S. be able to eradicate the very roots of terrorism? Only time can tell.

Donate

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Douglas Houck

    The conundrum that the US faces is that to take Al-Raqqa they need to better arm the Syrian Kurds, which would kill their relationship with Turkey. Another option is to acknowledge the importance of the Syrians and their allies, Iran and Hezbollah as the other way to defeat ISIS and take Raqqa. So far the US has not accepted either of these options.

    I wonder if the Americans are not also thinking of a third option of increasing American troop strength and having Americans directly involved with the heavy artillery, tanks etc.in the attack on Al-raqqa. I bad idea personally, but it does provide an answer to the destruction of ISIS, as they can’t seem to accept either of the other two. I would think ISIS would love to see American soldiers in direct combat. Who knows. What else are all those proposed thousand of soldiers going to do?

    • Fred

      The sad news is that the West has devastated another nation and with US boots now officially on the ground they most likely will proceed to carve up Syria inserting themselves into any peace negotiations. Whatever the US does it will satisfy the interests of Israel. ISIS merc insurgents now fleeing the scene to their comfortable homes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, GB and the US will return later using the so called “safe zones” to maintain a constant terrorist insurgent campaign in Syria for continued destabilization and unrest in the Levant.

      • Douglas Houck

        I don’t disagree with your point the the West has devastated another nation nor its support of Israeli desires/policies. ISIS as a functioning military power is going to go away sometime this year. I don’t believe there will be “safe zones”, nor will the US carve up Syria. The ability of the US to dictate their interests onto other countries is over, thanks to Russian military technology.

        I believe we are seeing the first attempt to allow a country to decide itself, what it wants/needs to do to. President Putin has been hammering on this point of no outside interference, national boundary integrity, allow each country to determine how best to manage their own affairs within the context of international laws for a long time. To me that is his genius and will be his most lasting legacy. If this works, it will usher in a new era where the US as world hegemony no longer gets to dictates itself on anyone and everyone it wants to. Hail to multi-polarity.

        I’m hopeful, as the Syrian government and people are in the strongest negotiating position in the ongoing peace negotiations. If the opposition doesn’t play by the rules the SAA has the means and ability to simply kill/destroy them.

        Right now the oppositions is laying out their wish lists. The HNC wants an interim government and then a referendum. Most likely not going to happen as this is like saying give me what I want now without having to go through the wishes of the Syrian majority. Too bad.

        The Kurds are not going to get some separate federal governing body as their ideology (Marxist/feminism) doesn’t appear to result in a viable functioning state. I would suggest they be allowed to teach their children in both Arabic and Kurdish, and even that the Syrian government in this area be as bilingual as reasonable. Something like what Canada does with the french Canadians. At a minimum the Kurdish identify must be respected and accommodated as much as possible. That said, the Syrian Kurds have to stop using terrorism within Turkey, and everyone has to learn to live together. Not going to be easy.

        Thanks for the reply

        • Fred

          Thank you for the explanation, but I doubt it will be that easy for the US/GB/Israel/ and the Saudi’s to become more neutral without a timely accord between the US and Russia while the door is still open and the opportunity remains.

          • Douglas Houck

            I agree that countries don’t change their strips just to be nice and these are simply my 2 cents worth of thoughts.

            The ground has shifted. The Americans under President Obama was more than happy to use ISIS for their purpose of regime change in Syria, but towards the end President Obama begin to change his mind. President Trump has specifically stated he wants to destroy ISIS (most likely as it disrupts any and all economic trade/growth, but who knows).

            The original plan was to remove Assad and install something that would isolate Iran from the rest of the ME. That plan is dead and no amount of assassinating Syrian negotiators, publishing unsubstantiated lurid horrors of the Syrian government’s actions towards its own people, and other forms of bluster are going to change that basic fact. President Al-Assad will serve out his seven years as President, and Syria will retain its borders.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a timely accord between the US and Russia as the US has few options. Obviously, all the major players are talking with each other. The US is bombing specific targets in Idlib and Deir Ezzor. Russia is working with Turkey in the taking of Al-Bab. Syria is working with the Syrian Kurds near Manbij. Talks between the top generals of Russia and the US are occuring.

            The original US plan to take Al-Raqqa was with their own group of fighters, both Syrian Kurds and some unnamed Arabs as there has always been the cultural issue of having non-Arabs enter an Arab town. One sees this in Mosul, where the Pershmerga have to stay outside the city. I don’t believe the US have that many Arabs under their command and the only practical solution is for the SAA and its allies defeat the ISIS elements within Syria. They are the best fighters by far in Syria and the most motivated. But only the people at the top know.

            Stay tuned, and again, these are simply my own two cents. You get what you pay for. :-)

  • Rick0Shea

    The USA’s plan is to air drop crates of weapons on ISIS – that could crush them if they failed to move out of the way in time.

    • grumpy_carpenter

      They could just cut out the middleman and drop crates of money on them ….. cheaper in the long run and how often have you heard of rich suicide bombers.

  • grumpy_carpenter

    The USA should realize by now their military presence in the region is toxic. They should go back to doing what they did successfully during WW2 and provide funding and material support to the Russians who have shown far better strategic and political judgement in the region than the USA.

    I’m not suggesting that Russians do the fighting per se but that Russians provide the strategy, tactics and planning and the USA provide funding and logistical support. I know this is never going to happen ….. Americans see themselves as the ultimate warriors and they got more money than brains.

    I would love to see how much it really costs the American taxpayer to kill a single enemy combatant if you factor in all the logistics, intelligence, general staff and support to go along with cost of munitions and delivery thereof. What does it really cost to deliver an air strike from a carrier in the Persian gulf?

    • FlorianGeyer

      You have a very convincing argument . The cost of killing every terrorist in a year, with data supplied for the past 20 years would be very revealing. Also the cost of murdering all the civilians in the US attacks.

  • Fritz Otto

    The US need only leave the sanctions against Irak and Syria and stop all support of IS an Al-Kaida! This would be largely enough to reforce YPG, Irak and Syrian forces to eradicate all terrorists in their countries…!
    But doing so US would leave all her lying impact over thee countries…! nevertheless its crime against humanity

  • Brad Isherwood

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assad-idUSKBN15P1AK
    Assad said U.S. troops would be “welcome” in Syria to fight Islamic State provided Washington coordinate with Damascus and recognize the sovereignty of his government.

    “If the Americans are genuine, of course they are welcome. Like any other country, we want to defeat and to fight the terrorists,” he said

    “Troops is part of the cooperation … (but) you cannot talk about sending troops … if you don’t have a clear political position toward not only the terrorism, toward the sovereignty of Syria, toward the unity of Syria,” he said.

    “It must be through the Syria government.”

    • America ask Asaad’s permission for anything?
      I hear Russia is bombing Raqqa – if the Americans hurry up Russia might bomb them by mistake.

  • mark123456

    The only way of defeating isis is by killing them. I know its an idea and it will grow into something else …. so kill every last one of them. Counter financing and other efforts are cute, but KILLING is the best. All the us gotta do is choose who best can do it…. them or the kurds or someone else.

    • beard681

      The majority of people in the middle east want sharia law and reject western values. It doesn’t matter how many ISIS or Al-Whatever jihadists are killed dozens more will spring up in their place. As for who would be the strongest forces to oppose Sunni Wahabis that would be the Shia – let by Iran. They have been fighting them for centuries.

      The US should stop being the worlds policeman, welfare office, battered women’s shelter and social justice arbiter. Bring the troops home now.

  • The US has no competent Generals. They are childish and over paid. Often times the stuck up kids from high school. No brains, no morality, no critical thinking skills, and no ability.
    Same goes for our politicians (except for Ron Paul).
    Most US solders in fact just joined for money to get drunk, free schooling at other peoples expense, and to pretend that they are some sort of heroes, even though 95% of them are cowards.
    The whole world should just unite in “Passive-Resistance” against the Zionist States of the American-Empire and be done with it already.
    Just finishing tapping the USSA off of the economic cliff, and let us all start over.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBHAKV3YUfg

  • Keith Abraham

    Wow, a easy 54 billion in there back pockets, just another working day with great pay.

  • Rodger

    “The reasons that have been preventing the U.S. authorities from achieving results in this direction so far remain a mystery.” Lol, like they don’t know who their backers are…… It’s just that the US likes those backers more than their wish to end ISIS. And again no points in the plan to hurt the people backing ISIS, just some measures to make ISIS more dependent on those same backers. This is a joke.

  • John Mason

    A devastating impact by the US towards Daesh/ISIS would be to stop supporting them, now that would work.