
Recently, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has not only terrorized the entire globe, but they have ensued chaos and committed atrocities across the Middle East. Primarily, they have been operating in parts of Iraq and Syria, as this is where they have claimed their holy land, or caliphate, to be. Julia Glum, from National Business Insider, estimates that between 2002 and 2015, solely in the Middle East, they have killed 33,000 people, injured 41,000 people, and kidnapped more than 11,000 people (Glum). They also extort, beat, and steal, not to mention disperse large amounts of drugs to the public. A recent United Nations report claimed that ISIS is now using mentally challenged children as suicide bombers (Buncombe). Most of their victims are innocent, unarmed civilians, however, there are many military casualties as well. It is necessary to permanently disband ISIS for the safety of the Syrian and Iraqi people, but the current U.S. strategy to do so is slow and inefficient. Instead, the U.S. should put conventional soldiers in a combat role in the fight them. This would not have to be as expensive and grand as the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. However, this would call for a contingency of regular military units to deploy and remain in Iraq and Syria for months at a time. Then, U.S. forces would commence in a ground campaign, working hand-in-hand with Iraqi forces, to liberate ISIS occupied territories and dispatch major leaders. This would be a better option than the current strategy because it would help the people of Iraq and Syria who are less capable of fighting ISIS. It would reduce the amount of Iraqi and Syrian causalities that they claim in battle and on an everyday basis, and it would accelerate the decline of ISIS. Despite these positives, a portion of the American populace may resent this idea because of the amount of money it would require the U.S. to spend, the heightened risk of U.S. troop safety, and how it could affect America’s global reputation. Without this plan, the U.S. will continue to deal with ISIS as it currently is, putting more civilian lives at risk. 

The current U.S. strategy to counter ISIS consists of the following: supplying and advising local and Iraqi government forces, occasional clandestine raids, and bombing missions. Using local and Iraqi government forces is a good idea in theory, but realistically, it is faulty. The two groups that the U.S. relies on are the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi Defense Force. In the past, the U.S. has relied on Middle Eastern parties to fight but it ultimately came back to bite the U.S. in the butt. During the Soviet-Afghan War, in the 1980s, the U.S. funded a local Afghan militia, also known as the Mujahideen, to fight the Soviet Union. Later, this group would become the Taliban (Lengler). In recent years, the U.S. has funded Syrian rebels to fight the Syrian government, however, some of these rebels have actually joined ISIS. Relying on the Kurdish forces and Iraqi Defense Force may result in the same outcome. The Kurdish forces that the U.S. rely on now are divided into two Kurdish groups: the northern Iraqi group called the Peshmerga, and the Syrian group called the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG). The Kurdish Peshmerga could prove to be an unreliable ally as they have a history of rebellion and violence, causing two formal wars with the Iraqi government. Not to mention, they have two very polarized political parties. The other Kurdish group, the YPG, may also prove to be an unreliable ally as they have close relations with the PKK, a major drug distributor in the Middle East and considered a terrorist group according to some countries (Lengler). Also, the YPG has had members of its ranks join ISIS in recent years. Kurdish forces may ultimately prove to be untrustworthy because they have their own agendas and a record of misbehavior. On the other hand, the Iraqi Defense Force (IDF) is more reliable, but the Kurds and the IDF both share a common problem (Lengler). They do not have enough funding, training, or experience to swiftly destroy ISIS. Their forces do not have the weapons, technology, and systems that America does. Even the supplies that the U.S. does give to them are hand-me-downs (CIA). However, when America actually does use their cutting-edge technology against ISIS it is with covert raids. Covert raids are conducted by unconventional, heavily funded U.S. troops. Special operation missions are often kept hidden from the public, so knowledge of their success or failure is usually unknown. However, it is known that there is only a small amount of special operation forces in the Middle East, and they do not conduct many missions. General Raymond Thomas, senior officer of U.S. Special Operation Command (SOCOM), spoke of his frustrations in regards to the limitations placed on SOCOM missions: “I’m told ‘no’ more than ‘go’ on a magnitude of about ten to one on almost a daily basis,” he said (Turse). The limited amount of special operation missions along with the shaky Iraqi allies mostly accounts for why the U.S. strategy to defeat ISIS has been taking so long. On the other hand, the airstrikes that the U.S. usually conduct go well. They have destroyed major supply routes and hideouts of ISIS, but an intense bombing campaign has its drawbacks. It is often difficult to hit major ISIS targets because they will surround themselves with innocent civilians and use them as human body shields from the airstrikes. In a CNN interview, Alan Dershowitz emphasizes that Iraqi civilian deaths would be minimized if America were to put boots on the ground because it would lessen the need for airstrikes (CNN). Also, from the perspective of the Iraqi people, bombs being dropped anywhere near their home cannot be a very comforting idea. It is paramount not to harm innocent people, so this approach can be difficult. An example of ISIS using human body shields can be seen in Mosul. In a recent CNN article, Basu exclaimed, “Tens of thousands of men, women and children snatched from their homes and forced into the center of Mosul as the battle intensifies” (Basu). Not only is Mosul an example of how innocent people are being used human body shields, but it is also an example of the current, slow-paced U.S. strategy. 

In 2014, ISIS captured Iraq’s second largest city: Mosul. Two years later, in March 2016, the fight to retake Mosul began. Kurdish Peshmerga forces are attacking from the northeast, and Iraqi Defense Forces are attacking from the southeast, with U.S. special operators advising close-by. Overall, it has taken allied forces a full year to reach the Tigris River, which divides the city of Mosul in half (Friedman). This slow progress allows ISIS to continue oppressing the people of Iraq and Syria even longer. Instead, the U.S. could use conventional U.S. soldiers in a ground campaign to oust ISIS; this would be more efficient. The U.S. has a defense budget of $581 billion dollars compared to Iraq with $6 billion dollars. The U.S. has 5 times as many military personnel as Iraq, 7 times as many naval ships, 30 times as many tanks, and 50 times as many aircraft (CIA).  A U.S. ground campaign could look something like this: America would increase its military size months prior to a campaign. This would actually help with job security for currently serving soldiers and offer more opportunities to the American populace. Then, U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine servicemen would deploy to numerous military bases scattered over Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan in preparation for a main campaign. There would not have to be as many troops deployed as the 2003 Iraq War because of the progress that has already been made. U.S. Special Operation Forces (SOF) would conduct a plethora of covert missions to gain intelligence on targets and to kill or capture major ISIS leaders in Iraq and Syria. Un-manned and manned bombing missions would take place to destroy hideouts and supply lines as best as they could. The U.S. would continue to support the Iraqi Defense Force and fight hand-in-hand with them against ISIS. Assuming no other NATO nations join the fight, U.S. and Iraqi forces would kick off the ground campaign in Mosul, northern Iraq, and push west into northern Syria, finishing in Raqqa and Aleppo. The leader of Syria, Assad, may have issue with a large American presence is Syria, but he has not taken serious action against the recent forces which have been deployed there as of mid-march. Furthermore, allied forces would focus on liberating ISIS held towns, destroying hideouts and supplies, and neutralizing enemy forces. As this would be going on, special operation units would have hopefully subdued ISIS leaders and the fight would end very quickly (Boot). Then, hopefully Trump would approve of a solid re-building program for damaged towns and help evacuated citizens to return home. Overall, this would be more efficient and faster plan. 

Despite the positives that this strategy would have, some American citizens may resent it. CBS News conducted a survey in 2014; it stated that 75% of Americans thought the Iraq War was not worth the cost and only 18% of Americans thought the U.S. should put boots on the ground in future Middle Eastern conflicts (Dutton). With ISIS, people may have the same demeanor as well. Bruce Newsome, from The Berkley Blog, believes that many Americans would feel this strategy would be too expensive and cause too many American deaths. Well, it would be more costly than the current one. For reference, the Iraq War costed the U.S. $2 trillion dollars, and the U.S. has spent $6 billion dollars against ISIS (Shaw). However, it would not have to be as expensive and large-scale as the Iraq War. ISIS is not as great of an established and recognized organization as Iraq was in 2003, and there has already been progress made against them. So, it would be the more expensive, but the costs and benefits must be weighed out. In the end, the results would be worth the extra money spent. It would put an end to one of the world’s leading problems. People in the Middle East would be much safer and there would be lesser amounts of drugs being distributed. Many Iraqi refugees fleeing from cities such as Mosul would be able to return home. The U.S. and other countries would not be at as high of risk of homeland attacks (Gorka). Another concern that the American people might express would be putting American soldiers in harm’s way. There would be American deaths, but that is what soldiers do. Of course, nobody likes when U.S. soldiers are deployed and in harm’s way, speaking from personal experience, my father was deployed 3 times to Iraq. However, American people voluntarily join the military and select what job they want in the military. People select what branch of the military they want to join, such as Army, Navy, or Air Force. Then, they select what specific job they want in that branch. Most U.S. serviceman causalties are found in jobs that are focused around combat, such as Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, etc. Those who join the more dangerous jobs of the military are voluntarily risking their safety more than other soldiers in the military. That is not to trivialize American deaths, but soldiers voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way. Though the American populace could potentially have issues with putting boots on the ground against ISIS, the eradication of ISIS along with the safety of the Iraqi and Syrian people would be worth the expense. 

Ultimately, the U.S. should put conventional troops in a ground campaign against ISIS because it would decrease the amount of time it would take to defeat ISIS, helping the Iraqi and Syrian people greatly. The current strategy, which is taking too long and has its faults as well. The Kurds may prove to be unreliable; the bombings have limited effectiveness and so are the special operation raids are limited. The implementation of a U.S. led ground campaign may be costly and possibly resented by some Americans, but it would ultimately be worth the expense. Some other notable people that believe in this plan are John Kasich and former Army Chief of Staff. John Kasich, governor of Ohio, stated in a recent TIME article that America needs to destroy ISIS from the ground, and that bombings are not enough (Kasich). Former Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, stated the following when talking about boots on the ground, “But there comes a point where you might have to put — special ops can only do so much. So, you might have to put some conventional force. But I’m not talking 20, 30, 40,000. I’m in the 1 to 2,000 range to get done, at least initially what we have to do.” (Coca). Both of these approaches are valid, it is necessary to boots on the ground because airstrikes and spec-op raids are not enough. A military force between one-thousand and two-thousand troops could potentially be effective. It would not be that big, so it would not be that drastic of a plan and it would not rustle peoples’ feathers. Actually, something similar to this plan has recently occurred.  

In early March 2017, U.S. Army Rangers were spotted in Syria, on their way to the city of Manjib. This is a new development because this means more boots are on the ground, and these boots are probably not meant for peaceful negotiations. The 75th Ranger Regiment has never been used for training locals or advising, they have always been tasked with attacking the enemy. With mottos such as “Rangers lead the way!”, they have a history of spearheading major involvements, such as the Panama Invasion and D-Day. However, the Pentagon insists that they were deployed to keep the peace between feuded Syrian militias, so they can focus on kicking ISIS out of Manjib (Linehan). This may or may not be true, and unfortunately, the public may never fully know. In other news, U.S. Marines have also been deployed to Syria this early March. These Marines are a part of 1st Battalion, 4th Marine, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Since there is only one battalion of Marines, they probably have between 400 and 800 troops. The Pentagon says that their objective is to provide artillery fire on the ISIS controlled city of Raqqa so Syrian forces (YPG) can attack (Lamothe). The implementation of these Rangers and Marines could be good. The Rangers could speed up the process of liberating Manjib, and the Marines could speed up the process of liberating Raqqa. On the downside, the leader of Syria, Assad, has verbally denounced the deployment of these troops into Syria and called them “invaders” (Starr). Any direct action with the Syrian government would only lead to more problems for the U.S. However, the Syrian government has not done anything yet, and most likely, will not. This topic is very urgent, and since the U.S. has deployed troops to Syria recently, it seems like the U.S. is understanding that putting some boots on the ground may be a good idea. In fact, the implantation of these troops in combat could prove to the American public that U.S. troops in a ground campaign could be a good thing. It would at least be better than the current U.S. strategy of completely relying on Iraqi forces, using airstrikes, and spec-ops. As previously stated, this strategy is just not as efficient as a boots on the ground campaign would be. 
