Nation Building Isn't Needed to Fight ISIS

The president should focus upon a narrow mission, and resist calls for yet another quixotic crusade in the Middle East.



In his speech to the American people tonight, President Obama aims to build support for a protracted military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

It doesn't have to be a hard sell. A majority of Americans support a military response—though not U.S. troops on the ground. Very few are content with allowing ISIS to spread its influence with impunity, especially after the brutal killing of the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. The group has effectively declared itself an enemy of the United States, and there is growing support for action against the group before it even attempts an attack on the U.S. homeland (something that it appears only to be aspiring to, as opposed to actively planning for).

But taking the fight to ISIS means going back into Iraq, a country in which now four successive U.S. presidents have taken the nation to war, and the American people are understandably anxious about being sucked back into a seemingly open-ended conflict. Thus, two questions are particularly relevant: First, how large a response is justified? And, second, what end state is acceptable?

The bipartisan Beltway consensus offers up predictable answers to these questions: the response should be massive, and we should be seeking the complete eradication of ISIS as a military and political movement. Indeed, the harshest criticism comes from those who argue that the president isn't doing nearly enough.

In his appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" over the weekend, President Obama twice assured Americans that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground. But some believe that the president should be preparing Americans for a major operation, one involving potentially many thousands of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq for an indeterminate period of time. Outspoken neoconservative Max Boot estimates that between 10,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops might ultimately be required in Iraq.

One should take such estimates with a large grain of salt. In 2003, Boot claimed that 60,000 to 75,000 U.S. troops could stabilize Iraq, disputing the higher number of 200,000 U.S. troops cited by military planners. A few years later, as Iraq descended into a brutal civil war that claimed over 400,000 lives, Boot was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of a larger U.S. presence there. How much larger? The U.S. troop "surge" topped out at just over 170,000, not counting the many tens of thousands of private security contractors in country. And even that wasn't enough to stabilize Iraq. The hoped-for reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia Arabs never occurred, while the Kurds maintained their autonomy in the north, undermining what little authority the central government in Baghdad ever hoped to have.

Troop numbers are a function of the mission at hand. Ambitious objectives require many resources, and lots of patience. The hawks on both the left and right believe that a large U.S. ground presence is required because they don't want to limit the mission to merely hitting ISIS—they want to restore stability and order in Iraq, exclude Iranian influence from Iraqi politics, and topple Bashar Assad in Syria. In other words, they want us back in the nation-building business, but now in two countries racked by civil war and sectarian hatreds, instead of just one. Their desired end-state appears to be two friendly, liberal democracies in the heart of the Arab world.

By contrast, most Americans support a more achievable end-state—a weakened ISIS that is contained by those who have the most to fear from it. Thus, a wider U.S. war in Iraq is unlikely, and a wider war in Syria even less so. Besides, Barack Obama doesn't appear to want one. Perhaps he has learned from his predecessor's bitter experiences over the past two decades?

Simply put, a full-scale ground war with U.S. troops doing most of the fighting isn't necessary. ISIS currently presents, at worst, a minor and manageable threat to U.S. security. The group has many enemies, and they are growing more determined to resist it by the day. If ISIS expands the territory under its control, it will acquire even more enemies. If it attempts to consolidate control in the territory it already has, it will engender resistance and opposition, as al Qaeda did in western Iraq in 2006.

There is a military mission available—targeted air strikes against ISIS extremists, and military assistance to Kurdish and Iraqi forces taking the fight to them on the ground—that can degrade ISIS's capabilities, and complicate its now very limited ability to attack the United States. The president should focus upon that narrow mission, and resist the calls to launch the U.S. military on yet another quixotic nation-building crusade in the Middle East.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Obama to Announce Military Action Against ISIL, Scottish Independence Movement Gains Steam, Obamacare's Popularity Drops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It wouldn’t exactly be insanely expensive nation-building. It’d be more like insanely expensive re-nation-building. Yay!

    1. Considering the amount of data I gathered on the city I was assigned to (Haditha) is probably still kept by the Marines, the “re-nation-building” could be marginally cheaper!

      If that’s not a total victory, then I don’t know what is!

  2. What? Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer will demand a full scale Bush-style $2 trillion nation-building renewal in Iraq. Then they will be on the TV all week calling Obama “weak” for not doing so.

    Why these two jackasses are listened to anymore is still a mystery.

    1. fuck your daddy, turd.

  3. Send Blackwater

    1. Ebola would be cheaper.

      1. Anyone hear what happened to that air marshal who may have been injected with Ebola?

  4. Let’s not lose our heads over this!

    1. I see what you did there.

  5. How anyone who is skeptical about the US government ability to ‘nation build” in the USA would not find it laughable that the US government could successfully nation build in a foreign country when they don’t know the language, culture, politics, religion, economy etc etc of that country.

    And please don’t bring up Germany and Japan, both were very successful nations long before the US got involved and what the US did was maintain an occupation army for decades to prevent the government from picking up bad old habits. It did not nation build, the Germans and Japanese did that.

    1. Completely agree with everything here.

      Though as a caveat, Korea was not a successful country prior to WWII and it turned into such under some amount of American supervision.

    2. Nation building is for suckers.

  6. I’m not sure if this hurts my libertarian street cred or not, but here’s what I would do in the middle east:

    Announce to ISIS that we will not enter a war unless they drag us into it; but in the event we do enter, all bets are off and we will be operating on the principles of Sherman’s March to the Sea: there will be no prisoners, your cities will be demolished, and if you’re a civilian, get the fuck out of the way or else.

    None of this nonsensical nation building shit.

    1. The US doesn’t have the unity of purpose to destroy ISIS in that manner and wouldn’t even if they attacked us here.

      Too many disenting voices,both sincere and those with dubious intentions, to allow for that.

      It would take a dictator, and not a president, to make that happen.

  7. In his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” over the weekend, President Obama twice assured Americans that he was not contemplating U.S. boots on the ground.

    In two months, he’ll have “advisors” on the ground. Politicians seem to be incapable of learning the lessons of history re: the application of American military; or maybe they do understand them, but are willing to pay the price–or, rather, have other people pay the price–to remain on the relatively stable ground of the political center.

    Obama is an amoral shitheel who will get American kids killed, not in protection of a single American citizen, but to save face politically while hiding behind the gauzy concept of Pax Americana and protecting Iraqis who his predecessor put in mortal danger by destroying the political structure of Hussein and co.

    You’d think that we’d have figured out by now that you can’t fight ideas with guns. It didn’t work against the commies with domino theory, and limited air strikes or even all-out combat can’t defeat islamism or wahhabism.

  8. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ??????

  9. my best friend’s step-aunt makes $73 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for ten months but last month her paycheck was $13048 just working on the computer for a few hours. you could check here………..


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.