How to Defeat ISIS With Millennial Spirit and Service

Terrorism and other 21st-century challenges require sacrifice shared by all Americans.

Kashmiri demonstrators hold up a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during a demonstration against Israeli military operations in Gaza, in downtown Srinagar on July 18, 2014.
TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ron Fournier
June 16, 2015, 10:48 a.m.

I know a bet­ter way to fight IS­IS. It starts with an idea that should ap­peal the bet­ter an­gels of both hawks and doves: Na­tion­al ser­vice for all 18- to 28-year-olds.

Re­quire vir­tu­ally every young Amer­ic­an — the civic-minded mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion — to com­plete a year of ser­vice through pro­grams such as Teach for Amer­ica, Ameri­Corps, the Peace Corps, or the U.S. mil­it­ary, and two things will hap­pen:

1. Vir­tu­ally every Amer­ic­an fam­ily will be­come in­tim­ately in­ves­ted in the na­tion’s biggest chal­lenges, in­clud­ing poverty, edu­ca­tion, in­come in­equal­ity, and Amer­ica’s place in a world afire.

2. Mil­it­ary re­cruit­ing will rise to meet threats posed by IS­IS and oth­er ter­ror­ist net­works, giv­ing more people skin in a very dan­ger­ous game.

(RE­LATED: What Should the U.S. Do About IS­IS?

This may seem like a rad­ic­al plan un­til you com­pare it with two al­tern­at­ives: the status quo, which clearly isn’t work­ing, or a mil­it­ary draft, which might be the bold­est and fairest way to wage the long war against Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ists.

Re­mem­ber in Septem­ber when the be­head­ings of two Amer­ic­ans gal­van­ized the na­tion against IS­IS? Pres­id­ent Obama, who had dis­missed IS­IS as a “JV team,” prom­ised, “We will de­grade and ul­ti­mately des­troy” the Is­lam­ic State. Nine months later, IS­IS is win­ning.

In a pier­cing ana­lys­is, my col­league Kristin Roberts cut through the Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an spin to de­scribe two op­tions we face in deal­ing with a “leth­al, stra­tegic­ally smart, and tac­tic­ally ef­fect­ive ad­versary.”

The United States — un­der Barack Obama or the next pres­id­ent — can choose to sit this out, to let Sunni fight Shia and then Wah­h­abi fight Sunni un­til some res­ol­u­tion is found. The risk as­so­ci­ated with this op­tion is that what re­mains stand­ing could be the slave-hold­ing, wo­man-rap­ing, Chris­ti­an- and Jew-killing ter­rit­ory known as the Is­lam­ic State, which will not pause to rel­ish vic­tory but in­stead set sights on Europe and the United States.

Or the United States — un­der Barack Obama or the next pres­id­ent — can choose to en­gage ag­gress­ively, hop­ing that a great­er as­sault than what’s be­ing ac­com­plished by U.S. air­power and on-the-ground train­ing will stop IS­IS from des­troy­ing the gov­ern­ments in the re­gion that still take Wash­ing­ton’s calls. The cost of this choice is great: money and, more im­port­antly, blood.

If you prefer the first op­tion, this column isn’t for you.

If you choose the course of con­flict and sac­ri­fice, un­der­stand that a “great­er as­sault” would re­quire con­sid­er­ably more U.S. air­craft, mil­it­ary ad­visers, and com­bat troops. Es­tim­ates for “boots on the ground” vary from 10,000 (Sen. John Mc­Cain and Gen­er­al An­thony Zinni, former head of Cent­ral Com­mand) to 25,000 (mil­it­ary ana­lysts Kim and Fred Kagan) in Ir­aq alone — and as high as 100,000 to com­pletely des­troy IS­IS (former CIA Deputy Dir­ect­or Mi­chael Mo­rell).

(RE­LATED: What IS­IS Really Wants)

Whatever the num­ber, it would be big — and would re­main so for years, if not dec­ades. Obama already is ey­ing a net­work of bases in Ir­aq, which may need to re­main in­def­in­itely.

Also un­der­stand that a sus­tained fight against IS­IS would de­mand a new stream of troops. This coun­try has already asked too much of too few. Re­deploy­ments — cyc­ling the same men and wo­men through com­bat again and again and again and again and again — is un­sus­tain­able and un­fair. Just a tiny frac­tion of so­ci­ety lives with the res­ults: phys­ic­al and men­tal in­jur­ies, per­son­al fin­ance and ca­reer prob­lems, re­tire­ments and long-term dis­ab­il­it­ies.

One way to truly level the costs would be to re­in­state the mil­it­ary draft and im­pose a war tax, the cause of lib­er­al New York Demo­crat Charles Ran­gel, an 84-year-old Korean War vet­er­an. “When I served, the en­tire na­tion shared the sac­ri­fices through the draft and in­creased taxes, but today, only a frac­tion of Amer­ica shoulders the bur­den,” he said. “If war is truly ne­ces­sary, we must all come to­geth­er to sup­port and de­fend our na­tion.”

The Draft Act is highly un­likely to be law, giv­en the na­tion’s post-Vi­et­nam res­ist­ance to the man­dat­ory mil­it­ary ser­vice and the re­l­at­ive suc­cess of an all-vo­lun­teer armed forces. Which leads me to the year-of-ser­vice plan: It stops far short of a draft while draw­ing on the eth­os of com­mun­al sac­ri­fice.

I spoke about the concept with re­tired Gen. Stan­ley Mc­Chrys­tal, who com­manded forces in Afgh­anistan and Ir­aq and now chairs the Frank­lin Pro­ject, part of the As­pen In­sti­tute that is try­ing to po­s­i­tion a year of full-time na­tion­al ser­vice — a ser­vice year — as a “cul­tur­al ex­pect­a­tion, a com­mon op­por­tun­ity, and a civic rite of pas­sage for every young Amer­ic­an.” His lo­gic tracks with mine.

First, he’s not sure Obama is fully com­mit­ted to the goal of des­troy­ing IS­IS.

Second, if this pres­id­ent or his suc­cessor gets ser­i­ous about IS­IS, Mc­Chrys­tal said the ef­fort would re­quire an in­ter­na­tion­al co­ali­tion and more U.S. troops. “Even if we didn’t need a draft” to drum up the re­quired troops, Mc­Chrys­tal said, “I would ar­gue we need a draft, be­cause it forces na­tion­al com­mit­ment.”

He knows a draft isn’t in the cards. A na­tion­al com­mit­ment to “ser­vice years” would prime the pump of an all-vol­un­tary mil­it­ary, Mc­Chrys­tal said, while unit­ing the coun­try in sac­ri­fice.

It’s not a draft, but it’s not noth­ing.

“A prob­lem in Amer­ica is we’ve let the concept of cit­izen­ship di­min­ish in­to a series of gripes,” Mc­Chrys­tal told me. “One of the ways we can re­build that sense of own­er­ship, sense of shared own­er­ship, is through ex­per­i­ence, and so I be­lieve that every young per­son de­serves — I don’t think this is an oner­ous thing — de­serves the ex­per­i­ence of be­ing part of something big­ger than them­selves.”

Bow­ing to polit­ic­al real­it­ies in risk-averse Wash­ing­ton, the Frank­lin Pro­ject aims to make a ser­vice year a so­cial ex­pect­a­tion rather than a leg­al re­quire­ment. I would man­date it. So would Mc­Chrys­tal — if he had his way.

While IS­IS and oth­er ter­ror­ist groups are hav­ing no trouble re­cruit­ing sui­cide bombers, Mc­Chrys­tal said, Amer­ic­ans are strug­gling to re­define their na­tion­al iden­tity for the 21st cen­tury. “A year of ser­vice for young Amer­ic­ans would be a step,” he said. “Not a pan­acea, a step.”

I think we should take it.

NOTE: The ori­gin­al ver­sion of this column over­stated Mc­Chrys­tal’s es­tim­a­tion of troops re­quired to erad­ic­ate IS­IS. He did not con­firm es­tim­ates made by oth­ers.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
1 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
2 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login