- Assuming that IS has 100,000 troops, the US must bring a force of 300,000 to bear under the old (and perhaps obsolete) rule of 3 to 1 on the offensive. It took six months to prepare for Desert Storm and longer for Iraqi Freedom with far fewer troops than 300,000. The terrain is desert, and supply lines will run from ports that have to be secured, along with roads that could be filled with IEDs. For the Americans, the logistics would be as tough as the battle.
Logically, the best course for the United States is not to engage. IS is beginning to realize this and seemingly prefers to force a battle. That is why we are beginning to see terrorist actions flaring in Western countries. The lesson al-Qaida taught IS is that the Americans have a threshold and that if you cross it, they will react dramatically.
Therefore, it appears to me that IS is searching for that threshold and probing to see responses. Attacks like the ones in Paris last month were not in response to French involvement in the region. These attacks are unconnected to that, but are designed to be as terrifying as possible—both in their suddenness and brutality—and compel a response.
Bleak. So what to do then? It seems that the IS has got itself in a pretty good position, despite or because of the fact that they are willing and ready to sacrifice the lives everyone around them. The United States is damned if it attacks them (ground war in the Middle East) and damned if it doesn't (suffering indiscriminate terrorist attacks indefinitely). And knowing how scared Americans are after the attacks in Paris--polls put American fear for their security as high as in the immediate aftermath of 9/11--I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that all it would take is an ISIS coordinated attack on American soil for the shit to hit the fan. What's to be done?
I think that the threshold is far lower than that, actually. If they did to an American plane what they did to the Russian plane, that would be a tipping point. Easier said than done, obviously, because our security situation is qualitatively different from Egypt's. But, it's not ironclad by any stretch. And if there's anything that makes people in the US jittery, it's airplanes. One bomb, even an unsuccessful bombing attempt where the attacker gets through TSA screening, would be a major game changer, I think. In the few years after 9/11 there were at least two failed bombing attempts on planes coming from Europe to the US, and people were able to keep their cool for the most part, so hopefully I'm not correct.I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that all it would take is an ISIS coordinated attack on American soil for the shit to hit the fan.
I think we start by recognizing that ISIS are a bunch of penny-ante gloryhounds that want nothing more than the legitimacy of engagement with a prime conventional force. They don't have to win; when martyrdom is a major plank in your platform your cause is advanced simply through engagement. Nobody has ever worried about Libyan pirates taking over the world. Sure - wrong-headed apocalyptic idiots may align with an eschatological Wahibi sect and cause real violence. But they sure as fuck won't come from Iraq. You want to nip ISIS in the bud? Treat muslims at home like humans and give them less to relate to when they look at the shitheels hamming it up in the Fertile Crescent. There's a whole lotta Islam and the more you paint the guys in Detroit to look like the guys in Damascus the less they belong to your society. Islamic terrorism in the US and Europe is entirely the product of islamic denigration in the US and Europe. We cut that shit out and nobody will give a fuck about the crazies in the middle east. Ain't nobody in the US aligning with Boko Haram. You make ISIS seem as foreign and unrelatable as Boko Haram and the domestic problem becomes foreign affairs. PS I'm drunk.
This is really blunt. I guess Friedman thinks we will see another major terrorist attack on US soil within the next 3-5 years. I'm a little skeptical. If the capability was in place to pull one off, ISIS wouldn't wait years to do it, because their future is still too uncertain.Logically, the best course for the United States is not to engage. IS is beginning to realize this and seemingly prefers to force a battle. That is why we are beginning to see terrorist actions flaring in Western countries. The lesson al-Qaida taught IS is that the Americans have a threshold and that if you cross it, they will react dramatically.
They've got all the ability they need for a certain scope -- see map, article -- and not even close to enough in my opinion for the ambitions he ascribes to them. War Nerd's right; Friedman's right. A group that rapes a bunch of desperate Yazidis is scary but not Scary.