We come from different sides of the political spectrum, and for years have exchanged divergent views on America’s national security strategy, the Iraq war and Iran’s nuclear program. But we agree on some fundamentals: that America’s leadership is essential for global stability, and the United States must continue to serve as an example of tolerance and freedom for the rest of the world.
That’s why the national response to the Paris and San Bernadino attacks matters—it will define who we are as a country and whether others around the world who take their cues from us will follow us. Strands of fear, racism, escapism and defeatism have marred our national debate, pointing to a worrisome bipartisan crisis of US leadership in the world.
Terrorist groups like ISIL use mayhem with a variety of outcomes in mind—among them, to make us forget who we are and to polarize the public debate in ways that undermine efforts to defeat them. And that’s just what the anti-refugee, anti-Muslim and anti-global engagement voices are doing—they are undermining America’s ability to defeat this threat.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations committed to never portraying the fight against terrorists as a religious war, and that is correct. The simple truth is that Islamist terrorists kill vastly more Muslims than non-Muslims. Attempts to besmirch an entire religion betray everything we believe in as Americans, and undercut the many Muslims who fight for America or their own countries against the scourge of terrorism.
Similarly, calls to close America’s doors to refugees risk undermining who we are as a nation. Instead of slipping into fearful isolationism, Republicans and Democrats should dedicate their efforts to enhancing the background checks on refugees fleeing conflict. This is eminently doable, and there is ample room for the Obama administration to negotiate a reliable system with Congressional leaders. At minimum, we should strive to achieve the Obama administration’s target goal of admitting 10,000 refugees from Syria in the next fiscal year.
Why do it? Because we are the largest, richest and freest country in the world. If we lack the moral fortitude to dedicate resources to screen and admit those fleeing the horror of war, we cannot ask other countries to do the same. And if we cannot manage this task, how can we manage to defeat an apocalyptic enemy?
But condemning anti-refugee and anti-Muslim actions is only part of the answer; just as important is how we go on the offense against ISIL. The recent ISIL shift to focus on external targets in France, Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt demonstrates that this terrorist group cannot be contained within the territory it controls in the heart of the Middle East.
More than a year into the anti-ISIL campaign, the Obama administration’s light footprint approach with an emphasis on airstrikes and drones has not produced sustainable security in an era of pop up jihadists and crowd-sourced terrorism of the sort we have just witnessed in California. And that fact is evident to the American people: Less than a quarter of Americans say that the Obama administration has a clear plan for dealing with ISIL, according to a recent CBS News poll.
The first corrective element involves attacking the ISIL centers of gravity in Syria and Iraq and enabling Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian opposition forces to seize back territory. To build the confidence of those partners, the United States should work with its coalition allies—several newly emboldened in the wake of the Paris attacks—to lay out a new approach in both Iraq and Syria that includes a substantial commitment of advisers, forward air controllers and close air support. Countries like the United Arab Emirates have offered ground troops for this fight.
No fly zones and safe zones—which would help stanch the outflow of refugees—are achievable only with clear aims and allies in the region as active participants. Long-term stability in Syria also requires pushing back against any efforts to reinforce the cruel Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad from countries like Iran and Russia, including working with regional partners to stop the military resupply of Assad forces, stopping military resupply and standing firm in ongoing peace talks and insisting that a lasting diplomatic resolution requires Assad regime leaders to be held accountable for their crimes. Stability also requires a willingness to use airpower to protect Syrian opposition forces from Assad regime airstrikes.
But this is not simply a Syria fight. The Obama administration was right to reengage in Iraq last year, as Syria cannot be won unless Iraq is also stabilized. The coalition should invest in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi, as well as capable Iraqi and Kurdish troops. But Abadi must, with Washington’s backing, push back on Iran, and move forward with sincere efforts to create an inclusive, secure and non-sectarian Iraqi state for all Iraqi citizens.
Lastly, the United States needs to root its anti-ISIL campaign in a long-term strategy aimed at stabilizing the broader Middle East and North Africa. The ISIL threat has gone viral in the year since the campaign began, with new affiliates emerging in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. Responding effectively requires more robust leadership and coordination of a coalition that now includes more than 60 countries working to cut off terror finance, stop foreign fighter recruitment and counter the extremists’ message. And part of that leadership will also require the United States’ publicly calling out partners who are not doing enough to stem the flow of foreign fighters and financial support to ISIL.
Members of Congress and presidential candidates need to come together to reject anti-Muslim rhetoric that plays into terrorists’ hands, find a way to safely accept refugees and embrace a stronger American leadership role in the global strategy to defeat ISIL. This includes passing a new authorization on the use of military force more than a year after military operations against ISIL began. It requires a comprehensive reexamination of our immigration and refugee policies, stepped up military and intelligence efforts and more effective coordination among the countries working to fight ISIS. Most of all it requires bipartisan leadership rooted in American resolve and values
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1IVlVN2
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment