"We cannot win without fighting," General David Petraeus once observed, "but we can't kill or capture our way to victory." He was speaking of Afghanistan but his comments apply equally to any unconventional conflict. The General's conclusion contrasts sharply with those of politicians demanding more robust military action against ISIS. One presidential candidate has called for carpet-bombing the Islamic State, while another wants to kill not only terrorists, but their families as well. Why, one wonders, would a general with so much military experience council restraint while politicians who have never served in the armed forces demand harsh measures?
Years of working with military officers from around the world has taught me an important lesson: Soldiers usually understand the limits of force better than the civilians who deploy them. They realize that although cruise missiles and attack aircraft can win wars, these weapons will not solve political, economic and social problems. The U.S. military in particular learned this lesson in Iraq. Having unleashed the most fearsome conventional war machine in history on Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon watched that machine grind to a halt on the streets of Baghdad. MI-A tanks that had swept all before them during the invasion were useless against looters, insurgents and terrorists. Five years of difficult counterinsurgency operations that followed revealed another important truth. Getting into a country is much easier than getting out of it. The dubious outcome of the Iraq War also serves as a reminder that foreign policy should be guided by the same basic principle of medicine: Do no harm.
In the case of the Islamic State circumstances dictate the need to tread lightly. ISIS fighters operate within populated areas occupied by civilians terrorized into submission. Targeting those fighters with anything other than precision strikes is certain to harm innocent civilians. The accidental killing of 10 Iraqi soldiers by an American airstrike illustrates how easily such tragedies can happen. Large-scale bombing would cause more deaths, create more refugees and increase the bitterness and resentment of those who have already suffered so much without necessarily destroying ISIS. Invading Syria might make it a little easier to sort out the bad guys from the good, but U.S. forces would certainly suffer casualties and they could find themselves embroiled in yet another protracted and costly counterinsurgency campaign. An invasion would do little to disrupt ISIS cells abroad and nothing at all to deter lone-wolf terrorists. It might even encourage them.
So why the call for harsh military measures against ISIS? Political leaders and those who elect them usually perceive decisiveness as a sign of strength and caution as a sign of weakness. Bold action, especially in the aftermath of an attack, makes them look and feel good. It is also much easier to demand aggressive measures when you are campaigning for office than it is to carry out those measures when you have the responsibility to govern. The American political system exacerbates this tendency to go for the quick fix. The entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate faces voters every two years. The campaign for the 2016 presidential election began in the fall of 2014. Short election cycles encourage short-sighted policies, dramatic measures that may produce limited immediate results without yielding significant long-term gains.
What then is to be done about ISIS? Unglamorous though it may be, the current strategy is the correct one. Keeping the Islamic State under constant pressure, targeting its leaders, degrading its capabilities and disrupting it finances is already having an effect and will ultimately succeed. Many observers have interpreted recent terrorist attacks as a sign of increasing strength when they may be a sign of waning power. As the U.S. and allies squeeze ISIS in the Middle East, it lashes out abroad. A wounded animal is perhaps the most dangerous, but its days are usually numbered.