Re: Here's where we are coming down on recommendations

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: vjs2001@gmail.com Date: 2014-06-17 09:02 Subject: Re: Here's where we are coming down on recommendations

There is another legal basis for crossing border and conducting Syria air strikes but focus on counter terrorism mission is smart. I fear even that will be a headache for CAP. On Jun 16, 2014 5:45 PM, "Vikram J. Singh" <vjs2001@gmail.com> wrote: > Still rough - welcome any thoughts. It may not have pasted too well into > gmail! > May be pushing it on AUMF but have stepped back quite a bit. > > Best, > V- > > > > In this complicated and quickly evolving situation, the United States > needs to be clear about core U.S. objectives: > > - · Weaken ISIS to prevent it from controlling substantial > territory from which it can become a threat to the region, our allies, or > the U.S. homeland. > - · Reduce threats of growing sectarian conflict sparking a > wider regional war. > - · Safeguard reliable and capable partners such as Jordan, > Turkey, and Kurdistan Regional Government. > > > > To advance these objectives, the United States should take five steps, > none of which require the reintroduction of U.S. combat troops. > > 1. Condition additional U.S. assistance to Iraq on government reform and > action to incorporate and empower moderate Sunnis > > The United States has a major security and military cooperation package in > place with Iraq's government to provide a pipeline of arms and hundreds of > military advisors worth $13.225 billion in 2013 and 2014 alone.[viii] > <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn1> The United States has maintained a presence of > more than 5,500 diplomats, intelligence professionals, military advisors, > and defense contractors to support Iraq. In total, the United States and > Iraq have plans in place for a major arming and equipping program that > could top $25 billion total arms sales if fully implemented, including 140 > M1A1 tanks, 36 F-16 combat aircraft, the Integrated Air Defense System, and > Apache attack helicopters.[ix] <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn2> > > > > Prime Minister Maliki’s sectarian policies squandered the sacrifices of > Americans by not producing an inclusive government; President Barack Obama > has rightly called for assurance that the Iraqi government will take > actions to unify the country and reduce sectarian tensions. All further > aid like additional special forces advisors and equipment should be > conditioned on a unified, cross-sectarian response by Baghdad and > commitment to greater regional autonomy and inclusive governance. Only some > actions directly aimed at degrading ISIS and humanitarian assistance should > not be conditioned. Maliki wasted the opportunity to bring Sunnis who > fought against Al Qaeda in Iraq into his government and security forces and > refused to sign an agreement with the United States that would have helped > maintain greater American support for a transition. Today, the United > States should not get drawn into sectarian clashes that can only accelerate > the fragmentation of the country. > > > > *2. Inoculate against a regional war and crack down on regional support > for ISIS * > > The United States should engage in a regional full-court press involving > top military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials to persuade relevant > regional stakeholders—Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran—to step > back from actions in Iraq and Syria that could lead to a wider regional > war. The United States remains the dominant military force throughout the > region, and it continues to provide overall stability in a region that > remains the top oil producer for the world. Even after the United States > redeployed its military forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, it maintained > a strong military presence in the Gulf region, with more than 35,000 troops > deployed to help maintain stability in the region.[x > <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn3>] > > Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel gathered all of the members of > the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC—including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, > Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. He secured a general > commitment to work together to enhance regional security, including overall > measures to limit ISIS.[xi] <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn4> One area in which > these countries should take more action is cracking down on private > financing that flows from some Gulf countries to terrorist groups such as > ISIS—and the United States should increase its Treasury and Justice > Department efforts to cut the financial links between the Gulf and > extremist groups such as ISIS. > 3. Mobilize regional stakeholders through diplomacy to push for a > political solution > > The United States should lead an intensive diplomatic effort to develop a > shared strategy and coordinated approach to pull Iraq back from the brink > of civil war. Between 2006 and 2008, the United States participated in > diplomatic discussions involving all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran—to > help decrease the violence in Iraq.[xii] <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn5> Now is > the time for countries with influence over the Iraqi government, Iraq’s > religious class, and the various ethnic and sectarian communities to push > for a resolution to the crisis that moves Iraq beyond Prime Minister > Maliki’s zero-sum sectarian politics. As part of the reported direct > dialogue between the United States and Iran, the United States should > emphasize that the sort of majoritarian politics Iran has encouraged in > Iraq have directly contributed to the current security environment and will > continue to pose a direct threat to Iran if they do not work to reign in > Maliki’s excesses.[xi <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn6>ii] > 4. Reinforce reliable and capable partners in the region > > The United States should reinforce key regional partners such as Jordan, > which is already coping with the challenges of the Syrian civil war and its > attendant refugee outflow. Additional security and intelligence > coordination and operations with Jordan, Turkey, and the Kurdistan Regional > Government are essential, along with humanitarian assistance to help care > for those displaced by the crisis. These partners have intelligence and > capabilities that we should leverage to degrade the threat from ISIS. They > should also be early beneficiaries of additional resources from the > Counterterrorism Partnership Fund proposed by President Obama at West Point > last month to bolster regional partner efforts to combat terrorism.[xiv] > <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn7> Any effort to degrade and defeat ISIS as a > security threat and a political and ideological force will require a > comprehensive counter-radicalization strategy to blunt the growing popular > appeal of radical Islam, including the surge in Salafi jihadism throughout > the region. The United States should focus assistance on regional partners > that are willing to undertake reform efforts that can build more inclusive > societies and that will undermine the ideology of extremists over time. > 5. Prepare for limited counterterrorism operations against ISIS, including > possible air strikes > > It is clear that ISIS poses an immediate threat to Iraq and a possible > terrorist threat to the United States and its allies. In Iraq, the United > States should prepare for limited use of U.S.—and if possible allied—air > power on ISIS targets to degrade their ability to further destabilize the > country and to protect U.S. interests, including the protection of > thousands of American citizens working for the United States inside Iraq. > Strikes need to be rooted in good intelligence on the ground and will > require prepositioning of some additional military assets in the region, > including armed drones and personnel to advise the Iraqi government. Their > utility will be in helping to slow the advance of ISIS and providing some > time and space for Iraqis to regroup, but they will not on their own turn > the tide. This kind of support is similar to what the U.S. Air Force did > with regional allies throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s conducting > Operation Northern Watch to ensure the Kurds could operate free of > advancing threats by Saddam Hussein’s forces.[xv] > <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn8> > > Action against ISIS in Iraq alone will likely push the problem back across > the border into Syria, where ISIS controls large swaths of ungoverned > territory. This possibility requires more robust efforts to train and > equip the moderate Syrian opposition forces that have shown a willingness > and ability to fight ISIS and Assad, something CAP has called for > previously.[xvi] <#146a6a4b31ff0282__edn9> The administration and > Congress should make this the first test of President Obama’s > Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, using resources already dedicated to > Overseas Contingency Operations. Details about vetting, the location for > training, and the types of equipment necessary should be worked out > rapidly. > > In the event that ISIS comes to pose a credible and direct threat to the > United States, we should be prepared to undertake limited air strikes > against ISIS targets inside Syria. This would be similar to the air > strikes undertaken against Al Qaeda and its affiliates in ungoverned spaces > elsewhere in the world. Any strikes against ISIS in Syria would need to be > driven by clear, actionable intelligence against a target that poses such a > credible and direct threat. Given that ISIS has been joined by several > hundred European and even some U.S. passport holders, preparations to this > end should be taken now. As always, the president retains the authority to > respond in self-defense to an imminent threat to the United States. While > the threat to the United States does not yet appear to be imminent, the > evolution of ISIS in Iraq and Syria may well require the United States to > update the legal framework developed after the September 11th attacks to > ensure any president has the authority to combat terrorist groups that > threaten America with proper oversight from congress and accountability to > the American public. > > The Iraq War itself and its poor execution destabilized the region and > facilitated greater Sunni-Shia conflict within Iraq. The United States > should not undertake military action lightly and should be wary of > unintended consequences. But not all military action is the same. Ground > troops or invasions to control a country are very different from limited > air strikes or targeted assistance to help push back terrorist extremists. > Extremist terrorist groups controlling large swaths of territory in Iraq > and Syria from which they could ultimately attack American interests or > allies are worthy of a limited, effective response, including limited air > strikes. > > ------------------------------ > >