In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) threat and debates over US response to the same has taken centre-stage in the primary campaigns. As expected, a lot of what is coming out, especially from the Republican camp, is anti-incumbency in nature, meant to shoot down anything that President Barack Obama does and proposes as signs of weakness. However, apart from finding fault with President Obama’s strategy against the ISIS, what are the candidates really saying, and are the things they say really different from what the President is doing or envisions to do while he is in office?
National security and foreign policy issues in election campaigns are often reflective of incidents either within the US or abroad. Besides debates regarding the nature of America’s involvement in the fight against the ISIS, the issue of immigration regulation, especially regarding Syrian refugees has produced polarizing views. As far as the US strategy against the ISIS is concerned, most seem to agree on a more active involvement, mostly allying with those who have convergent interests, but stopping short of putting American boots on the ground.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Clinton
called for “a new phase” that includes “more allied planes” and “more strikes” on terrorist enclaves in Syria and Iraq. Calling for an “intensification” and “acceleration,” of Obama’s strategy, she vouched for augmenting air campaigns, ground efforts in Syria and Iraq, supported by greater intelligence support. Clinton’s strategy also includes a no-fly zone over northern Syria. While she supported comprehensive background checks and intelligence gathering for the vetting process, she
commented that “turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against Muslims, slamming the door on every single Syrian refugee” was not what America stood for.
Bernie Sanders speaking at Georgetown University wanted use of military force to be seen only as the last resort. Vouching for a broad coalition against the ISIS,
he said, “A new and strong coalition of Western powers, Muslim nations, and countries like Russia must come together in a strongly coordinated way to combat ISIS, to seal the borders that fighters are currently flowing across, to share counter-terrorism intelligence, to turn off the spigot of terrorist financing, and to end support for exporting radical ideologies.”
Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States as a national security measure has, if nothing else, generated much heat and attracted widespread criticism, although he found takers among his supporters. His views have been slammed not only in the Democratic camp, but have not been appreciated by other Republican presidential contenders either. Besides, Trump has publicly claimed that he would “just bomb those suckers.” “I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries. Every single inch -- there would be nothing left,”
he said. Speaking of Trump, John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center
said, “He doesn’t have a national security background and he says some things that are outrageous, but he still is playing into the worries, the worries broadly about immigration but more specifically the worries about security and terrorism that flow from that.”
Ben Carson
intends to use “every resource available” not “to contain” the ISIS but “to take them out completely.” Moreover, Carson apparently likened some of the Syrian refugees to “rabid dogs” while expressing fear that some refugees might be linked to the ISIS. He called for a vetting of Syrian refugees and
said, “We must always balance. We must balance safety against just being a humanitarian.” Although taking the often quoted line on the need for a global coalition and more responsibilities by Middle East allies in the fight against the ISIS, Jeb Bush also vouched for increased American presence on the ground. He left the number of troops to the recommendations of the military generals, but contended that air power was not enough though essential. Calling for a no-fly zone in Syria,
he criticized the Obama administration for being “detached from reality” and having “no intention of victory.” According to him, a successful strategy requires
arming the Kurdish forces in Iraq directly, something Marco Rubio has
also contended saying that he would arm the Kurds directly than routing much of the assistance through the Iraqi government in Baghdad.
Rubio
argued that the fight against the ISIS required an increase of US Special Forces in Syria that will supplement a majority Sunni ground force. According to him, defeating the ISIS militarily and ideologically called for an upgraded American effort, alongside coalition partners doing their part. Ted Cruz has also caused some unease by proposing that Christian refugees from Syria should be preferred for entry into the US, while calling it “lunacy” to allow Muslim refugees given the threat of their being aligned with the Islamic State. “There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror. If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation,”
said Cruz. Jeb Bush also propagated the view that Christians should be the focus of any assistance going to refugees in the Middle East.
Rand Paul believes that a major step forward towards fighting the ISIS would be to attack the source of their funding, especially targeting regimes in the Middle East which are presumably American allies. “From now on, our message to these governments and their ruling families must be clear: take accountability for your role in murdering our citizens or we will freeze your assets….Locate the citizens who are financing terrorism and lock them up or we won't sell you a single missile or fighter jet. The U.S. does not do business with terror financiers, period,”
stressed Paul. Carly Fiorina has been found
attacking President Obama, telling him to concentrate “his passion and energy” on America’s real enemies, rather than “attacking Republicans.”
Amidst accusations of being a weak leader and being indecisive in the fight against the ISIS, President Obama seems clear on his intent that while intensifying America’s efforts, the US should not take dramatic steps in the wake of the Paris attacks
just to look tough. Airstrikes, arms to Kurdish and Arab militias, building coalitions are some of the major steps that candidates in the reckoning have called for but these are all part of the current administration’s strategy. Besides, President Obama has also said that defeating the ISIS military and ideologically, and preventing lone-wolf attacks was going to be a long-term pursuit. The candidates are currently engaged in hyperbolic rhetoric and anti-incumbency criticism that are normal recipes of the campaign season. However, in most likelihood, whoever comes to the White House, will eventually take forward and tie the threads of what President Obama has already been doing and aims to do in his remaining days.
(
The author is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, Karnataka)
Courtesy: ORF US Monitor
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
