"The U.S. Can’t Destroy ISIS, Only ISIS Can Destroy ISIS. The Unfortunate Merits of the “Let Them Rot” Strategy" - Your thoughts?

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:06:27 -0400

Two articles on the fleet them rot strategy that, in my mind, seem to have merit. Article:

During the early 1990s the Algerian government fought one of the nastiest civil wars in recent history against a broad-based Islamist insurgency. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) conducted a brutal insurgent campaign employing vicious terrorist tactics on par with today’s modern menace the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known by the acronyms ISIS, ISIL or IS for Islamic State – you pick the one you like). GIA attacks were often indiscriminate and violent; involving large civilian massacres – quite ISIS like. While I always reserve extreme caution in endorsing any counterinsurgency or counterterrorism tactic utilized by the Algerian government, there may be one instructive lesson from Algeria’s strategy that we in the West and particularly the U.S. might examine for designing a plan to counter ISIS.

The Algerian government, having already tried extreme brutality and overwhelming force, recognized the need to employ smarter tactics. Rather than tracking every GIA member to ground and in so doing causing harm to locals and further bolstering GIA’s popular support, the Algerians selectively employed what Luis Martinez, author of The Algerian Civil War 1990-1998, describes as the “Let Them Rot” strategy. The Algerian government, Martinez explains,“sought to avoid human losses for non-strategic zones, but also to lessen the demoralizing effects of the ‘dirty job’ on the troops.” (See pg. 150.) Algerian security services isolated districts with Islamist sympathies leaving the GIA emirs to govern via Islamist law and principles. Contained by the Algerian security services, GIA emirs employed their extreme practices and quickly alienated the local populace as the district, walled off from the rest of society, crumbled economically. Over time, the districts and the GIA emirs that ruled them, slowly "rotted" creating conditions favorable for the development of local militias to combat the GIA. Local businessmen and disillusioned Islamists were re-engaged over time by the Algerian government who offered employment through security positions and opportunities through economic development plans. In the end, the Algerian government didn’t destroy the GIA in these selected districts, they instead let the GIA defeat itself.

The last two-week’s of U.S. discussion on ISIS has returned to last decade’s tough talk with calls for “destroying ISIS” and being “stronger” against an ISIS that is wrongly being equated with al Qaeda. ISIS, far more than al Qaeda, seeks the formation of an Islamic state and pursues many enemies of which only one is the U.S. As I discussed last week, the American quest to “destroy” ISIS is misguided. Western Iraq and Eastern Syria are of lesser strategic value to the U.S. than what is currently transpiring in Ukraine with regards to Russian aggression. By again plunging head first militarily into Iraq, the U.S. will not only re-confirm the narrative of al Qaeda that we’ve so desperately sought to shake the last ten years, but we will also be providing credibility to ISIS as the next leader of global jihad. Excessive military engagement will certainly weaken ISIS in the near term, but will likely only guarantee the strengthening of jihadi aggression towards the U.S. in one form or another for the longer term. If the U.S. insists on destroying ISIS, ISIS's remnants will later become something else, much in the way al Qaeda's death spiral has spawned ISIS. But if the U.S. can help ISIS destroy itself, it will be the best chance that jihadi violence can go away in our lifetimes. If the U.S. truly believes ISIS's violent ideology to be bankrupt, then why not “Let Them Rot” through a more sophisticated strategy designed to disillusion yet another wave of jihadi foreign fighters to Iraq.

In conflict, the better force will develop a deliberate strategy around specified objectives and exhibit patience in execution. (Russia’s recent several-month march into Ukraine might be emblematic of this.) To allow ISIS to defeat itself, the U.S. must show restraint when taunted, not infer defeat from an individual loss (e.g., beheading videos) and instead use its lauded smart power to avoid replaying the same strategic mistakes of the last decade’s regime building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To execute a “Let Them Rot” strategy against ISIS, the U.S. must answer two important questions.

1. How does the U.S. effectively isolate ISIS to prevent ISIS from gathering its necessary resources for survival and the inevitable exfiltration of foreign fighters conducting international terrorist attacks?

I assume this weekend’s announcement of a nine member coalition represents the first step in isolating ISIS. But a strategy involving isolation won’t work when there is a giant gapping hole in the perimeter called Syria. The U.S. and the West have avoided the Syrian conflict for two years, essentially permitting the conditions that spawned ISIS. I’ll be interested to hear how they collectively decide to "degrade" ISIS without truly addressing Syria’s civil war.

2. How does the U.S. lead a coalition to re-engage disaffected Iraqi and Syrian communities and their leading defectors that are willing to repel ISIS?

The U.S. gave itself great compliments during the 2007 "Surge" for winning the hearts and minds of Sunni tribesmen in areas today dominated by ISIS. To defeat ISIS, the U.S. and its coalition must be prepared to effectively entice defectors in these regions. Luckily, a current for rejecting ISIS may have already begun to emerge in Mosul.

http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2014/09/us-cant-destroy-isis-only-isis-can-destroy-isis-unfortunate-merits-let-them-rot-strategy

http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2015/06/four-key-drivers-eroding-isis?utm_source=FPRI+E-Mails&utm_campaign=aabf405fbd-FPRI+Insights+61315&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e8d0f13be2-aabf405fbd-179125285

The U.S. Can’t Destroy ISIS, Only ISIS Can Destroy ISIS – The Unfortunate Merits of the “Let Them...

During the early 1990s the Algerian government fought one of the nastiest civil wars in recent history against a broad-based Islamist insurgency. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) conducted a brutal insurgent campaign employing vicious terrorist tactics on par with today’s modern menace the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (known by the acronyms ISIS, ISIL or IS for Islamic State – you pick the one you like). GIA attacks were often...

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 20 at 2015 8:09 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:09:56 -0400

The only way to destroy ISIS is Lightning Fast. I suggest that we combine carpet bombing and gunship strikes, coordinated and fast.

We can NOT NO WAY NO HOW convert these people. The ONLY way to eliminate ISIS is to Kill Them.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jun 20 at 2015 8:40 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:40:01 -0400

Short of going all-in and sending a million ground troops to the Middle East for the next few years, destroying ISIS has to come through smarter means. Since they don't have access to many resources (besides oil and US military equipment that they capture from Iraq), if we isolate and contain them, their own medieval ideology will only weaken them more and more over time. Without outside support, ISIS will eventually collapse. Keeping them contained and isolated, and letting them rot away, is at least a coherent strategy that we can execute on, and should therefore be considered.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 20 at 2015 8:56 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:56:56 -0400

They aren't rotting yet. Actually, they aren't even ripe. They are budding and gaining more ground. They are not manageable like some sales sections at a retail clothing store. The Iraqis have the ability to kill these basturds but what's stopping them? Do they need a letter of encouragement from a lion?

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 20 at 2015 9:10 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:10:27 -0400

40,000 US Combat troops with no politicians and no press in theater....It's over in 6 months or less.

Response by SSgt Rachel Shelley (Cook) made Jun 20 at 2015 9:58 PM

SSgt Rachel Shelley (Cook) — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:58:05 -0400

If I may change the subject, I clicked on the article. Thank you for introducing us to FPRI. I will admit, I am a self-admitted reading addict. I prefer primary sources to "news" networks. Keep them coming!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2015 1:17 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 01:17:37 -0400

This is precisely what I have been advocating for, except I would take a more economic focus in order to hasten things along. They'd likely collapse on their own, as ISIS has no idea how to govern beyond M&I. Either the populace will get fed up with them, or when they run out of resources, the thugs that are in it for pillage will desert, leaving just the true believers to focus more surgical assets on.
Large troop commitments is a surefire way to focus the various interests in the area that don't like us much on us instead of each other.

The real trick will lie down the road when we have to find a way to bring those disparate interests into balance again. Opportunists will make that very difficult.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 21 at 2015 2:27 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:27:51 -0400

LTC Bink Romanick, sir, how does the situation in Syria differ from your "let them rot" scenario?

Isn't that what we have been doing for several years while ISIS was gaining strength and taking territory?

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 21 at 2015 12:56 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:56:15 -0400

http://ww4report.com/node/14126

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 21 at 2015 1:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 13:03:25 -0400

I believe they are content basing in Sunni cities. I will require immense air and ground assets to cordon off the cities. Eventually the outcome will be the Iraqi people and what they support.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 9 at 2016 2:34 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 14:34:57 -0400

well, then , if their fighters "hail from the time Iraq had a formidable military," maybe that is what the US should do, bring on-board Veterans who were part of it when the US "hail from the time US had a formidable military."