
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debate – ABC/Ida Mae Astute Photo
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have prioritized the threat of Islamic State (IS) in their presidential platforms, yet Clinton has provided much more detail about how she would tackle the IS problem.
In November, Clinton spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations about IS. Recently, she rightly chastised a pivoting Sanders, who dodged a question on his anti-IS strategy by talking about his Iraq invasion voting record. Clinton interjected, saying “a vote in 2002 is not a plan to defeat ISIS.”
Sanders said in the most recent debate that IS was the biggest threat to the United States, over North Korea, Russia, and Iran. But on actual strategy, he has said little, acknowledging that there is no “magic wand” for fixing Syria and that Hillary Clinton has much more experience than him.
Here is how the Democratic candidates’ strategies against IS breakdown:
Hillary Clinton
Goal: “Defeat and destroy” Islamic State by intensifying and accelerating current strategy, but keep American combat troops at home
How? Clinton wants to start a new phase of anti-IS operations that would “deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria.” In Syria, she wants to:
- Rely on local Sunni troops to engage in infantry combat against IS
- Increase deployment of special operations forces (SOF) and allow SOF to support allies with air strikes
- Enforce “coalition” no-fly zones on the Turkish/Syrian border against Assad’s air force in partnership with the Russian air force
- Lock down the Turkish/Syrian border to prevent refugees from entering Europe
- Support a Syrian-led democratic transition away from Assad
“We have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.”
– Hillary Clinton 11/19/15
What about Iraq? In Iraq, Clinton plans to:
- Allow troops in Iraq training Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to embed in Iraqi units and help target air strikes
- Arm Sunni and Kurdish forces in Iraq (with or without Baghdad’s approval)
Outcome: A post-Assad democratic Syria and Iraq where IS controls no territory
Bernie Sanders
Goal: Defeat IS while not repeating the mistakes of the war in Iraq using a coalition led by Middle Eastern allies
How? Sanders has made it clear that he thinks the destruction of IS is a “struggle for the soul of Islam” that must be led by Muslim nations with support from global partners. He wants to:
- Support a Syrian-led democratic transition away from Assad
- Create a NATO-like international organization to confront the threats of the 21st century and defeat violent extremism
- Obtain a commitment from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE to make the fight against IS their priority
- Arm Iraqi Kurdish militias
Outcome: A post-Assad democratic Syria and a Middle East where IS is defeated largely by their own efforts
There are some confusing aspects to Clinton’s IS strategy — namely, her enthusiasm for no-fly zones. She wants to stop the bombing of civilians by both Assad and Russia, but also wants to partner with Russia to enforce this hypothetical no-fly zone (who would thereby be abandoning their number one ally in the Middle East). These no-fly zones would serve to protect refugees, who would not be allowed to leave Syria because in her ideal world the Turkish border is locked down.
“It is more difficult to find flaws in Sanders’ strategy because he has not outlined much of one.”
Additionally, Clinton’s plan to arm and train Sunni and Kurdish militias in Iraq with our without Baghdad’s approval is a bit troubling. After IS is defeated, what incentive do these militias have to disarm and re-enter the Shi’a dominated Iraqi political system?
It is more difficult to find flaws in Sanders’ strategy because he has not outlined much of one. In the last debate he said he agreed with most of Clinton’s strategy, yet hardly elaborated. It is clear that Sanders does not want the US to lead operations against IS and instead would rather pressure other nations to take a more active role in the region. Essentially, his strategy is entirely dependent on external forces.
I find it interesting that he supports arming the Peshmerga in Iraq but no other militias in Iraq or Syria. I wonder if this was simply a matter of misspeaking or if he specifically supports the Peshmerga for some reason.
Clinton seems more prepared to take over Operation Inherent Resolve than Sanders. Unfortunately, whether or not her plan is ultimately more effective than Sanders’ “Can’t someone else do it?” approach will never be tested, because only one of them can become Commander-in-Chief in November — and neither might.
Pingback: The GOP Candidates’ Plans for Beating Islamic State Range from Contradictory to Absurd | Insurgentsia
Pingback: Without Significant Troop Commitment, Trump’s Syrian Safe Zones Will Not Be Safe | Insurgentsia