As mentioned in a previous post, a subsequent post would provide an analysis of the Clinton and Trump plans to defeat the Islamic State. This post is designated for that purpose. The post will address two critical queries. As the presidential election intensifies, a series of significant questions surround the positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump remain unanswered. First, have the American people been properly informed about the Clinton and Trump positions in dealing with the threat posed by ISIS? Second, how credible are their plans? That is, will either plan actually defeat ISIS?
Hillary Clinton’s Anti-ISIS Plans
Clinton’s initial plan to defeat ISIS consisted of three essential components which were unveiled in an address on December 19, 2015. In a recognition that ISIS poses a serious threat to US national security, Clinton called for “smashing its stronghold, hitting its fighters, leaders, and infrastructure from the air and increasing support for local forces.”[1] Second, Clinton argued for “dismantling the global network of terror that supplies radical jihadists with money….”[2] The third component called for the protection of the homeland by defeating “them here at home by foiling plots, disrupting radicalization, and hardening our defenses.”[3]
In a controversial statement intended to inform the American people of the limits of her plan, Clinton observed, “We will confront and defeat them in a way that builds greater stability across the region, without miring our troops in another misguided ground war.”[4] On August 15, 2016, Clinton made a similar but far more revealing statement on her position that American ground troops would not be used in a battle against ISIS. According to Clinton, “Donald Trump has been all over the place on ISIS…. He’s talked about sending ground troops—American ground troops. Well, that is off the table as far as I am concerned.”[5]
During the prime-time NBC moderated Commander-in-Chief Forum on September 7, 2016, Clinton provided additional clarification on the “no ground troops” declaration: “They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we’re not putting ground troops into Syria. We’re going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.”[6]
One day after the event, following criticism of Clinton’s declaration to not commit ground troops, the Democratic nominee used this statement during the press conference to revise her position: “I think putting a big contingent of American ground troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria would not be in the best interest of the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. In fact, I think it would fulfill one of their dearest wishes, which is to drag the United States back into a ground war in that region.”[7]
In an attempt to redefine her ISIS plan, Clinton made this subsequent comment: “We will discuss how to intensify our efforts to defeat ISIS and keep our country safe. To that end, I want to underscore something that I mentioned last night. We should make it a top priority to hunt down the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and bring him to justice just as we did with Osama bin Laden. As with that operation, getting al-Baghdadi will require a focused effort driven at the highest levels. But I believe it will send a resounding message that nobody directs or inspires attacks against the United States and gets away with it.”[8]
In a controversial post-forum comment, Clinton cited an article by Matthew Olson, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, who suggested that “…Olsen was so disturbed by what he has seen coming from the Trump campaign that he wrote an article that I guess came online in the last 48 hours, pulling from public sources, very clear statements by ISIS leaders, essentially throwing whatever support they have to Donald Trump. They have, as “Olsen pointed out, said they hoped that Allah delivers America to Trump.”[9]
The implications of Clinton’s comments are that Trump’s declaration that he would insert a large contingent of ground troops against ISIS would serve as a recruitment tool for the terror entity. This Clinton asserts would only lead to a protracted conflict that could lead to another quagmire for US forces.
Taken collectively, an analysis of her ever-evolving plans a salient conclusion emerges: in many ways Clinton’s statements (and the plans in general) represent a continuation of many aspects of President Barack Obama’s anti-ISIS strategy. And there are dilemmas associated with the candidates’ statement concerning her refusal to deploy US ground troops. First, Clinton has already signaled to the Islamic State her aversion to use of ground forces. Second, does the candidate not recognize there are currently over 5000 troops in theatre dealing with the ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq (and an additional number of US troops confronting ISIS in Libya and in parts of Afghanistan)? Third, a series of questions arise from her “no troops” declaration.
A number of interesting queries emerge from Clinton’s anti-ISIS plans. If elected, does Clinton intend to withdraw US forces in Iraq and Syria? Does Clinton’s position invite criticism about her effectiveness as commander-in-chief of US forces? Does the declaration raise questions about her strategy and commitment to defeat ISIS? Indeed, ISIS and other jihadists would certainly view any decision to withdraw US troops from the aforementioned areas by any presidential candidate as a salient illustration of weakness.
Donald Trump’s Anti-ISIS Plans
Donald Trump’s evolving plans on how he would deal with ISIS commenced hours after the announcement of his candidacy for president. In an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor, demonstrating his signature bravado, following a query from the shows’ host about how he would deal with ISIS, Trump stated, “I would hit them so hard. I would find … a proper general. I would find a Patton or MacArthur.”[10] Trump articulated additional statements that when taken collectively indicate that he was prepared to be far more aggressive on ISIS than President Barack Obama.
In an instructive point, Trump opined, “you bomb the hell out of them [ISIS] and then you encircle it, and then you go in.”[11] During the interview Trump then specified it was important to eliminate the Islamic States’ oil capacity (this statement predated Obama’s decision to target ISIS’s oil industry which the transnational network used to sustain their caliphate and to fund terrorist operations.
In a subsequent example, Trump called for eliminating ISIS’s use of cyberspace to recruit individuals to their cause and simultaneously deploy those minions to attack enemies of the terror group in the United States and around the world. On how Trump would end the Islamic States’ use of social media, the candidate offered this observation, “get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they’re doing.”[12] The response proved interesting but as is the case with many of Trump’s proposals on ISIS, they lacked specifics.
Following a review of many of Trump’s pronouncements on how he intended to deal with ISIS, a pattern emerged. There was no coherence, no clearly defined strategy. Put another way, Trump’s comments exposed that he lacked detailed knowledge of “the ways of foreign policy” and the need to delineate a defined plan. That is, the early statements indicated the candidates’ naïveté. Not to be dismissed, Trump’s early pronouncements were articulated to draw a distinction between his position and the multiple candidates that sought to win the primary and represent the party in the general election. In this area Trump succeeded.
During a CNN-moderated Republican Primary Debate on March 11, 2016, the real estate mogul addressed whether he would deploy U.S. combat troops against ISIS. According to Trump, “We have to knock out ISIS. I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000” that the candidate believed would be necessary to defeat ISIS. Both before and prior to the debate, pressed to provide more specifics about how he intended to deploy those troops, Trump made this comment, “I’m not telling you anything. And the reason I’m not is because if I run and I win, I don’t want them [ISIS] to know the game plan.”[13]
In a national security speech in Philadelphia on September 6, 2016, Trump argued that “Immediately after taking office, I will ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.”[14] Presumably, Trump would call for a review of Obama’s strategy and then permit senior military officers with an opportunity to present a series of military options.
Later in the address Trump noted that his anti-ISIS strategy “will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare, and ideological warfare—as I laid out in my speech on defeating Radical Islamic terrorism several weeks ago.”[15]
Conclusion
On the question of the credibility of their plans, in the case of Clinton, the candidates’ plan appears to be wide-ranging; however, it is “status quo” (consistent with that of President Obama, except that Clinton called for accelerated air strikes) and would not lead the defeat of ISIS.
As stated previously, Trump has yet to articulate a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS. Rather, after an examination of Trump’s speeches and statements on ISIS, the candidate has offered a series of piquant critiques of Obama’s strategy and that of Clinton’s anti-ISIS plan.
Throughout the primary and now well into the general election Trump incessantly informed the press and the American polity that they would have to wait until after he is elected for details of his actual plan. As a result of this position Trump is vulnerable to criticism that he lacks a plan.
While the candidates have endeavored to provide their perspectives on how they were prepared to deal with ISIS, a recent poll indicates the American people tend to agree with Trump’s position on how to deal with the Islamic State. In an illustration of the point, consider that “Among Trump voters, 61 percent favor committing both air and ground forces, 20 percent prefer air only and 9 percent oppose any military action. Among Clinton supporters, 27 percent favor both air and ground commitments, 40 percent favor air only and 18 percent oppose any military action.”[16]
The poll aside, have the candidates themselves detailed a workable strategy to defeat ISIS? The answer to the query is no. That is, at present neither candidate has offered a serious plan to defeat ISIS. In this major foreign policy question, the evidence indicates that in the absence of a workable plan, and one that deploys at least two American brigades against the Islamic State’s Caliphate, and includes details about to end the sanctuaries in 18 additional states around the world, then on this critical issue, one should anticipate a protracted conflict with ISIS with no clear indicators that the U.S.-led coalition would prevail.
[1] Remarks on Comprehensive Plan to Bolster Homeland Security, University of Minnesota. Hillary Clinton.com December 2015. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/remarks-comprehensive-plan-bolster-homeland-security/.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] National Security, Issues, Hillary for America-Hillary Clinton. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ issues/national-security.
[5] Katie Zezima, “Donald Trump Calls for ‘Extreme Vetting’ of People Looking to Come to the United States,” Washington Post, August 15, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/15/donald-trump-calls-for-extreme-vetting-of-people-looking-to-come-to-the-united-states/.
[6] Aaron Blake, “2 Big Problems with Hillary Clinton’s No-Ground-Troops Pledge,” Washington Post, September 8, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/the-two-biggest-problems-with-hillary-clintons-pledge-to-never-send-ground-troops-into-iraq-and-syria/.
[7] Ryan Teague Beckwith, “Read Hillary Clinton’s Press Conference About the Foreign Policy Forum,” Time, September 8, 2016. http://time.com/4484204/hillary-clinton-white-plains-press-conference-transcript/.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Donald Trump Running for President. FoxNews.com June 17, 2015. http://www.foxnews.com/ transcript/2015/06/17/donald-trump-running-for-president/.
[11] Lisa de Moraes, “Donald Trump Reveals Plan To Defeat ISIS: Bomb, Encircle, Send In Mobil To Take Their Oil,” Deadline.com. June 16, 2015. http://deadline.com/2015/06/donald-trump-isis-bill-oreilly-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-video-1201445840/.
[12] Alistair Charlton, “Get Our Brilliant People from Silicon Valley and Other Places and Figure Out a Way that ISIS Cannot do What They’re Doing.” Ibtimes.com. December 16, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-we-must-close-areas-internet-because-isis-are-better-it-we-are-1533561.
[13] Matthew Nassaum, “Trump Calls for Ground Troops in Iraq, Syria,” Politico, March 10, 2016. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz4JoAeit99.
[14] [The Hill Staff] “Transcript of Donald Trump’s Speech on National Security in Philadelphia,” The Hill, September 7, 2016. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/294817-transcript-of-donald-trumps-speech-on-national-security-in.
[15] Ibid.
[16] See Poll by Charles Franklin, “New Marquette Law School Poll Finds Tight Presidential Race, Feingold with Edge in Wisconsin,” September 21, 2016. http://law.marquette.edu/poll/.
