Recent polls indicate growing American support for “doing whatever it takes” to defeat ISIS. The group’s successes in Paris, Libya, the Sinai, Afghanistan, and indeed throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world show it edging towards America. Yet America under this administration muddles along in its ‘no-strategy strategy.’
A review of military history throughout the centuries will quickly show that collateral damage — the deaths of non-combatants — is an unfortunate but necessary part of achieving victory. The mere notion of collateral damage is a difficult one. A frank discussion about it is even more difficult. No sane, responsible, principled individual wants to see innocent civilians die under any circumstances. But, like it or not, that is what’s sometimes requried to achieve victory.
Prior to the invasion of Normandy in June, 1944, the Allies were appropriately concerned about inflicting casualties upon the French populace as the German units and defenses were about to be bombarded. Neutralizing German positions would require intense bombing which would inevitably kill civilians, possibly alienating the population. When the high command in London queried the French Resistance about what to do, the answer was forthright and succinct — “This is war. Do what you have to do.”
Now, as we muddle along in our fight (such as it is) against ISIS, we are caught up in the dilemma about what to do or not do. Senator John McCain reports that 75 percent of the air missions sent out to engage ISIS targets come home without having hit the enemy.
Concurrently, many pilots complain about the length of time it takes to get necessary clearance to engage openly visible targets and the frequency with which clearance is denied.
Others in the intelligence community state that they have good targeting information on ISIS’s major headquarters and support buildings in Raqqa but that they’re not allowed to designate strikes against them.
The issue in virtually every case is the fear of collateral damage. Our timid approach undermines any chance of degrading much less defeating ISIS.
ISIS’s continued growth and capabilities should ensure us that we will be attacked at some possibly not too distant time by more than just a few lone wolves acting out in support of ISIS. As government and private experts are warning, ISIS is intent on attacking us here in the U.S. and despite warnings that military or law enforcement personnel in uniform will be the primary targets, no one should be so naïve as to believe ISIS’s efforts will stop there. Every one of us — man, woman, and child — is a viable target for ISIS. Paris bears that out, and some of us will unfortunately find that out.
The fact is that any successful major attack by ISIS against the United States will be a boon for recruiting and new finances. They know it and it’s an encouragement to act sooner rather than later. And the same is actually true for al-Qaeda, but the obvious difference between the two is the amorphous nature and size of al-Qaeda’s presence. In sharp contrast, ISIS is there. We can see them. We can hear them. We can identify them. And we can slam them with all we have. But we don’t. We don’t out of fear of collateral damage.
At some point our leadership in Washington, from the White House to the Pentagon to the Congress, is going to be forced to address the subject of collateral damage and its impact on military actions against ISIS. The American public will demand it. There will be forceful arguments from both sides, all reasonable in their own right. But the fact is that defeating ISIS, much like defeating Nazi Germany, will require a military campaign that unfortunately encompasses civilian deaths. The sooner we start the debate, the clearer we’ll be when the decision has to be made about winning or losing the fight.