Amid warnings that air strikes will not be enough to stop the advance of ISIL, is it time that the UK and US consider the deployment of ground troops in Iraq and Syria?
Both Obama and David Cameron have earlier ruled out boots on the ground but will they be forced to re-consider?
Multiple sources including; The Pentagon press secretary, Syrian Kurds, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, France’s foreign minister, Alan Henning’s brother and many more have publicly stated that air strikes are not enough to stop Islamic State. First, both leaders have made public comments condemning boots on the ground due to the unpopular Afghan War and how it’s a popular opinion that boots on the ground costed the economy too much money and didn’t produce any valuable results. A recent poll carried out found that just over 70% of US troops (of 2,200 polled) were against boots on the ground in Iraq to fight IS. However, a recent poll carried out by CNN News found that people would support boots on the ground if military commanders determined it was the best course of action with 45% of people asked would support ground troops in the region to fight IS as opposed to 37% who would oppose them. A recent yougov poll has found that 29% of the UK public would support ground troops in the region (up 5%), 46% would disapprove (down 9%) with only 18% completely ruling out boots on the ground. So, what is the right answer? Should there be boots on the ground?
Yes. We have seen proof that air strikes are not doing enough to stop the progression of IS as they are, at the time I’m writing this, potentially hours away from taking full control of Kobani, held by Kurdish fighters. A senior Kurdish official, Ismet Sheikh Hasan, said the latest fighting was focused in the southern and eastern parts of the town. “We are defending but … we have only simple weapons and they have heavy weapons,” he told AP in a telephone call. “They are not besieged and can move easily.” Mr Hasan appealed for international help but added that the US airstrikes that have taken place over the last two weeks have ben largely ineffectual. Furthermore, on Friday Syrian fighters said that they’re outnumbered as they battle IS near the Turkish border – and warned air strikes are missing the target. Therefore, we see that air strikes are relatively ineffective in fighting IS (naturally they can’t be expected to work miracles over night) but it has already become clear that ground troops might have to be considered by the UK and US if air strikes continue to be as ineffective as they currently appear.
How would ground troops be more effective in the fight against IS? This conflict is not one that will end in a couple of months. IS are boasting tens of thousands of troops fighting, lucrative funding and they’re receiving more than $1.5 million a day from oil reserves captured in Iraq and Syria. This is a war that will go on for years, and as such, the governments of the coalition, chiefly the US, might be forced to deploy ground troops if they wish to achieve their aim of destroying IS. From Vietnam onwards, it has been clear to the US that air strikes are not enough to achieve military and political objectives. Without control of the ground, such objectives will not be achieved in Iraq and Syria because if troops are ruled out, and without adequate Arab forces available, failure will be inevitable in this war. Moreover, air strikes have one significant limitation which is they run the risk of significantly increasing civilian casualties. While IS has some known strongholds (in Raqqa and Syria, for example) which could be neutralized by air strikes, most of their hideouts will not be so easily neutralized. Just last week, the CIA estimated that IS could have 31,150 fighters sprinkled across Iraq and Syria and it’s imperative we recognize that they operate in clandestine cells in many parts of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere… The more the US and coalition bombs them from they sky, the further they go underground which would make the air strikes less effective while at the same time endangering more civilians and as the US and coalition have gone into this war on a ‘humanitarian’ cause, it would be counter-productive to endanger even more civilians.
“If the U.S. only uses air power, ISIS will eventually hide in the cities and the U.S. will be faced with causing a lot of civilian casualties to get the group out or kill its fighters,” said Dr. Ivan Eland, author of the “The Failure of Counterinsurgency: Why Hearts and Minds Are Seldom Won.”
On the other hand, it is also imperative that we realize the negative side of boots on the ground, prominently, the certain loss of life that would occur with troops being sent to fight in Iraq and Syria but also the expensive cost of funding ground troops. As of April 2014, more than 6800 American men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the US led a ground invasion in 2003. Likewise, the number of UK military deaths stands at 453. A Harvard study also found that the Iraq war of 2003 will ultimately cost taxpayers between $4 trillion to $6 trillion. Similarly, The cost of Britain’s interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached almost £30bn – or £1,000 for every taxpayer in the country, a respected defence think-tank claims.£30bn would pay for… 1,464,000 more NHS nurses, 408,000 NHS consultants, 75% of the HS2 budget. Without saying, the deaths of military personnel represents the biggest downside of sending ground troops in to fight IS but the economic negatives are hard to ignore and the public certainly isn’t ignoring these negatives, hence why polls show more support for the against ground troops argument. However, recent beheading videos of hostages such as Alan Henning has sparked outrage amongst the public in both of these countries and has actually increased the support of ground troops being deployed as shown by the 5% increase in a recent UK poll.
In conclusion, although both Obama and Cameron are ruling out boots on the ground at this time, it’s certainly foreseeable that ground troops could be deployed. The US has already sent 1200 troops to the region to help train local rebels and forces fighting against IS but these forces are not fully prepared to successfully fight against IS and as a result, ground troops might be the only way of ensuring victory in this war against IS.
Charles Oakley
topicaloutlook 