1.
Ifill: So what should be the US do and what
shouldn’t it do? We have two views. Former US Ambassador to Iraq, James
Jeffrey, served in the Army Infantry and is now distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute. And
John Mearsheimer []. Welcome to you both, gentlemen.
2.
Jeffrey: Thank you.
3.
Ifill: Jim Jeffrey, let’s break this up into two
parts, Military options and Diplomacy options. We hear a lot about boots on the
ground, commitment of US Forces, is that the only thing we should be thinking
about, is that where the Debate is right now?
4.
Jeffrey: In terms of taking down ISIS as a State
and as an Army, we have to go on the offensive. That requires ground Troops. We’ve
tried for 15 months to create a set of ground Troops from the Units and Entities
and Forces on the ground that we have. It isn’t working all that well. We don’t
have the Time to keep trying to do this. Some insertion of US Forces both as
advisers, Special Forces and some ground manœuver Units are absolutely
necessary to move this forward.
5.
Ifill: What would you mean by “some”?
6.
Jeffrey: General Jack Keane in Congressional testimony
on the 18th talked about two Brigades to be deployed, and that would be about 10,000
Combat Troops to stand by to move forward if needed as we try this expanded
incremental approach the President is suggesting.
7.
Ifill: John Mearsheimer, this is called having skin
in the Game, theoretically. What are the opportunities for that, and what are
the risks?
8.
Mearsheimer: I think there’s virtually no chance
that we’re going to put large-scale ground Forces in Syria, and President Obama
made clear that he’s not going to do that. And the principle reason is you’d
have to put a lot of ground Forces to defeat ISIS. And
there is no question that if you put a 100-150,000 Troops in Syria, you could
defeat ISIS. But then you run into the What Next
Question. What are we going to do, Stay there and occupy the place? The end
result would be we will be dealing with Insurgence and won’t know how to get
out, and just make a bad situation worse. So it’s quite clear to me that
there’s no way we can defeat ISIS from the Air or with ground Forces, and therefore we
have to find some diplomatic solution.
9.
Ifill: Before we get to the diplomatic, what are
the options? Are we talking about Occupation, is that inevitable?
10.
Mearsheimer: No, Occupation is not inevitable,
and I don’t believe we will end up occupying Syria, because we’ve tried this
before in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and it did not turn out very well, and we
would be remarkably foolish to try to duplicate that task. And there’s no way
we can win this one with Air Power alone. The only hope is that Assad Forces can
be rebuilt to the point where they can deal with ISIS, and we can get out of
the Region militarily.
11.
Ifill: Let me ask you both this question. You
know François Hollande is coming to Washington tomorrow, he’s going to meet
with the President. What should he be asking for?
12.
Jeffrey: What he will be asking for a far more aggressive
American Campaign against ISIS, because if he doesn’t get a Yes, an affirmative
answer to that, he’s going to in any case go after Moscow and ask the same
thing to Putin. Putin has perhaps one-tenth of our military capabilities, but Putin
will give him an affirmative on a very aggressive Campaign against ISIS, so
we’re going to have that one way or the other.
13.
Ifill: John Mearsheimer, what do you think about
what Hollande will or should be asking for?
14.
Mearsheimer: First of all, I think that what he
should ask for is a Coalition that includes the United States, the Russians, the
Iranians, and a number of other Actors in the Region for the purposes of
propping up the Assad Government. The only hope we have here is to prop up
Assad and make him powerful enough so that he can deal with the ISIS. That way
we don’t have to put in ground Forces, and the Russians of course are not going
to put in ground Forces themselves. So the only hope is Assad. But the principle
problem we face is the United States is incapable of working with the Russians.
We
still continue to pursue this policy where we’re trying to topple Assad, and
the Russians are trying to support Assad. This is crazy, because we’re
working at cross-purposes, and if anything, we’re just going to make the War
worse, that’s going to play into ISIS’s advantage. I think
Hollande understands this.
15.
Ifill: Let me stay with you, Mr. Mearsheimer, for
a moment, because you brought up diplomatic solutions. Do we have Time to
pursue that? We’re right in the middle of this now.
16.
Mearsheimer: We really have no choice. There is
no simple military solution, there’s nothing the Americans or the Russians can
do this militarily to win this, because we’re not going to put in ground Forces
for good reasons. So what we have to do is we have to work
with Assad, and we have to create a situation where he’s powerful enough to
push back ISIS, and work to get some sort of Peace settlement in the Region. It’s going to be remarkably
difficult to do, because in large part, as I said, the United States is
incapable of working with the Russians.
17.
Ifill: Ambassador Jeffrey, let’s talk about this
Assad question. It’s clear that we’re not on the same side of the Discussion
with Russia on Assad, and you just heard what Mr. Mearsheimer said about, Hey
listen, let’s forget about this Idea of ousting Assad for now. What do you
think?
18.
Jeffrey: Gwen, in this Business, we can never be
totally sure. But I’m about as sure as I ever can be that if we tried to throw
our weigh behind this unholy Coalition of Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians,
we would ensure that ISIS will not only survive but prosper, because the entire
Arab Sunni World and Turkey will throw their weight against us on this. This
is a double-barreled problem we have. The Assad Regime, which helped create ISIS, and is now supported by
Russians and Iran, and ISIS itself. The way to do this is to keep Assad
out of the Battle and take the fight to ISIS. ISIS has 30,000 Troops, we have
about 200-300,000 of our Ally Troops, but they don’t have the capability to
take the offensive without America leading.
19.
Ifill: Let me ask you, and I want to ask this
also to Mr. Mearsheimer, What is our long-term, or even our short-term,
strategic objective in Syria? Why should we be more involved?
20.
Jeffrey: First of all, I think it’s in the
center of the Middle East. Secondly, we have Allies to northern Turkey and
south in Israel and Jordan, and we have extraordinary interest. President Obama
has acknowledge it time and time again. He acknowledges we are fighting a War
against ISIS. His goal is to destroy it, he said that again yesterday. The
question is, How to do that? And our long-term goals are to try to bring some
kind of resurrection of State System in these very, very fragile Countries,
because they can’t stand up to these Movements otherwise.
21.
Ifill: John Mearsheimer?
22.
Mearsheimer: First of all, I don’t believe the United
States has any strategic interest in Syria. I think, from the strategic point
of view, Syria is an insignificant Country. It’s not like Iran or Iraq that
have lots of Oil. Second, I think the principle two reasons that we
should want to shut down this conflict as soon as possible is, number one, for humanitarian
reasons; this is Human Rights disaster. And secondly, if we don’t stem the flow
of Refugees into Europe, it’s going to cause all sorts of problems in Europe.
It’s going to cause all sorts of problems in Europe. You can already see that
happening. So we have deep-seated interest, not just for strategic reasons, but
for Human Rights reasons and because of Europe, do we what we can to end this
one as quickly as possible. But I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I
think the Ambassador’s view of dealing with the Russians is correct, and in the
minds of most Americans. Most People disagree with what I say, and therefore we
don’t work with the Russians, we won’t solve this problem, more Syrians will
die, and more Refugees will go into the Europe.
23.
Ifill: It’s interesting listening to you argue against
your own argument there, Professor Mearsheimer of University of Chicago. Thank
you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment