Research & Commentary Results

In his speech on September 10 President Obama characterized the Islamic State (ISIS) as a terrorist group.[1] There were clear political benefits to using this label, not the least of which was to facilitate the formation of a broad-based military coalition against the organization.

Afghanistan is often thought of as a place where some of the world’s most dangerous Islamists have taken refuge, been nurtured, and been allowed to launch regional and global jihad. Yet, with the agreement to form a unity government, the nation has provided an answer to extremism. Admittedly, the presidential election results were so riddled with fraud that it is probably impossible to determine who actually won. But it may nevertheless result in a victory for democracy. Seven million people risked their lives to vote.

This article was first published on LobeLog.

Alongside the wave of Syrian Kurdish refugees into Turkey this month is an equally unsettling story: alarming gains by the Islamic State in an offensive against a potential ally. Syria’s Kurds carved out their own regional bastion extending west from their main base in the extreme northeast corner of Syria. For two years they have fiercely defended their lands against the Islamic State and other extremists, employing many thousands of veteran Kurdish fighters.

This article was first published on CNN.

Turkey, a key U.S. ally and a NATO member that borders the territory captured by ISIS, which now calls itself the Islamic State, in Syria and Iraq, could play a critical role in the U.S.-led military assault against the jihadist group.

The following is the written testimony prepared and delivered by Amb (ret) Robert S. Ford for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing held on September 17, 2014. Click here to watch video of the full hearing (Amb. Ford’s testimony begins at the 3 hours and 26 minutes mark).

One way to grasp the immense difficulty facing President Obama as he tries to forge an effective international coalition to oppose the Islamic State is to examine the difference between this effort and the last time the United States led a diverse group of countries to take on a conflict in the Middle East: Operation Desert Storm, in 1991.

The following is excerpted from an article first published on MSNBC.

This article was first published on LobeLog.

This op-ed was first published in the New York Daily News.

The United States might not have had a strategy for battling ISIS last week, but it does now. The NATO summit in Wales produced one. It reflects President Obama’s instincts and his ability to corral fractious allies.

It also says nothing about the use of force by the United States.

Three and a half years into the Syrian civil war, it is clear that any hopes that the overall insurgency against the Assad regime might develop in a more “mainstream” and “moderate” direction have dissipated.[1]

The crisis in Pakistan is coming to a head. Of course it’s been building since the 15th of August, but now we’re faced with a situation in which this government is either going to survive or, very likely, were going to see a military takeover.

The big question is where does the military stand, because everybody realizes that ultimately the outcome will depend on what the military is willing to accept or, indeed, what the military wants.

Last week, President Obama said that he has no strategy yet to confront the Islamic State (IS) in Syria.  He was attempting to counter speculation about American bombing of IS targets there.  It had been rumored that the President wanted to decide on a war plan by the end of the week.[1] 

Read the full article on LobeLog.

Read the full article on CNN.

American airstrikes might be needed in Syria, but that would not be the most important tactic for success, nor would more material aid to the rebels be sufficient to contain the Islamic State over the long term. As in Iraq, there has to be a political angle as well.

This article was first published on Foreign Affairs.