Nik Gowing: Hello, I’m Nik Gowing, welcome to
the Emmanuel Center here in central London for this intelligence squared debate
on how the West should respond to the so called Islamic State, or Isis.
Beheadings, crucifixions, the attacks in Paris, control over billions of dollars
in oil revenues and extraordinary global digital power to influence people.
Currently, IS controls significant tracts of territory in parts of Iraq and
Syria, calling itself an islamic caliphate. Western leaders say IS must and
will be destroyed and currently they are only using air power. The new Russian
intervention to support Syria’s president Assad has now complicated all of
that. Some Arab states are now considering deploying military force, including
ground forces against IS. Should the West do the same? So, the motion for this
intelligence squared debate: defeating Isis means western boots on the ground.
We have an extra panel for you, arguing for the motion, American general John
Allen. Until last October, general Allen was president Obama’s special envoy to
the global coalition to counter and defeat Isis. And Douglas Murray, the award
winning political commentator who specializes in the Middle East, terrorism and
national security. Against the motion, Ken Livingstone, mayor of London when
the 7/7 attack on public transport eleven years ago killed 52 people on a tube
and on a bus. And Rula Jebreal, journalist and author, foreign policy analyst,
focuses on islamic extremism and the new political order in the Arab muslim
world. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our speakers.
Well, shortly you’ll hear from the four speakers, two for the motion and
two against. All them throw open the debate, to all of you on the floor to hear
as many views as possible from both sides, including the third view, that
you’re undecided at the moment. Let’s first, though, go to the opening
statement from the four panelers. Speaking first for the motion, four-star US
general John Allen; as US marine officer he was involved in military operations
in Iraq in Anbar province in 2007, hHe was president’s Obama special envoy for
the global coalition to counter Isis, until he chose to step aside late last
year.
Gen. John Allen: So let me start my portion of the
debate this evening by utterly confusing the event. I am both for the motion –
defeating Isis means Western boots on the ground – and I’m against it; let me
explain. In any crisis like this, the decision to commit force falls into two
broad categories. The decisions are not and cannot be binary. The reality will
be that the actual commitment of force will exist along of a spectrum of
capabilities that generally are dictated by political environment, by the
strategy and by the operational realities. So to the suggestion that we employ
large scale conventional formations, let me say they were actually quite good
at this, and there might be substantial short term accomplishment which would
make us feel good about that deplyment, but in the longer term an even greater
disruption of the political and social fabric is more likely the outcome in the
region, a region that is in deep crisis now. The other choice, the one I
strongly suppor could generally be described as enabling the indigenous force,
that is supporting and training and equipping and advising and assisting local
forces ultimately to be the defeat mechanism. So, in the end, elements of both
choices are necessary for defeating the scourge. So, what does this look like?
And just let me make three broad points: what we’re doing, what we ought to do
and what else we might consider with respect to the commitment of forces.
Critically, what we’re doing now must enable and support the Iraqi security
forces and Syrian opposition elements to physically defeat this organization on
the ground, whther that to sunni tribes or to sunni arab states, it is
essential that the ownership for the defeat of Isil be in the hands of the
indigenous population of that region, as King Abdullah II of Jordan said. So in
this we are already seeing some success on the ground, given the forces of the
West that have been committed. And these forces are performing the following
functions: precision strike with coalition air power, as Nik said; advisors at
various levels which are scalable depending on the operational environment; the
capacity building sites, training sites located in Iraq and in the region,
where the indigenous population is being trained and equipped to be the lead
element in fighting Isil. And now we’re beginning to move some direct action tier
one strike force elements into the region to pair with indigenous special
operators to strike the Isil targets as we discover them; that’s what we’re
doing. What we should consider, our additional advisors which could accompany a
broader spectrum of formations further forward in the conflict; the potential
employment of helicopter gunships; the creation of a joint special operations
task force, either in souther Turkey or northern Jordan manned by western
special operators but dedicated to training and the support of indigenous,
regional special operator, so that they are supporting our Syrian partners and
to some extent the Iraqis and Curds taking the fight to Isil. And then my one
large formation recommendation is: create a mobile special operation or airborn
task force again located outside Syria or Iraq would very close, supported by
combat aviation, which is transport and helicopter gunships that could move
very quickly to a vulnerability that we might detect in Isis’s outer crust,
strike that vulnerability, crush it, turn it over to the indigenous population,
withdraw quickly from the region and prepare once again for go to the next
vulnerability that Isil might reveal. We should consider how we in the West
with boots on the ground can support stabilization operations for the
liberation of population from Isil’s domination. We have to give the displace
populations of Iraq and Syria a place to return to, other than potentially to
come to Europe. So we should consider the temporary deployment of security
forces to provide security to those liberated populations until indigenous
forces can be trained for that security. So in the end, I’m both for the motion,
it will require specialized and carefully calibrated and deployed western, arab
and sunni military forces to defeat Isil. But I’m also against the motion that
where we find ourselves today in this battle with Isil, we should commit large
scale western formation of combined armed forces. It boils down essentially to
this: we do it and hand it off or they do it with our help. History has shown
over and over that the latter approach is the least destructive to social and
political environment and brings us the greatest likelihood of success. Thank
you.
