The United States and its allies need a three-dimensional strategy for beating back the Islamic State and its allies, one that looks beyond the immediate fight to eliminating the grievances that draw people to jihadist movements.
That’s the idea laid out by retired U.S. Marine General John Allen in an address at Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs in Atlanta last week.
Allen served as commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and as President Barack Obama’s special envoy for rallying nations against the Islamic State. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Allen says the anti-IS coalition needs a grand strategy that looks at the problem in near and long-range terms, from winning on the battlefield to fostering fair and open institutions.
The Cipher Brief sat down with Allen after his remarks to talk about some of the issues he raised, as well as the “catastrophe” in Yemen, the threat of “lone wolf” terrorist attacks inside the United States and what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – whom he has endorsed for president – should say about that threat.
The Cipher Brief: We’ve already had nearly 15 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. You’ve got an American public that is not showing a lot of interest in continued engagement. If you’re the president, what’s the pitch you make for this to Congress, which will be paying the bills, and the people, who have to support it?
General John Allen (Ret.): How’s it going now? Do you like this? I was involved all 15 of these years. I fought in Iraq, fought in Afghanistan, fought in Iraq again. Three different conflicts, three different enemies, and it’s because we’re not fundamentally changing the circumstances and the conditions that generate these organizations.
It also doesn’t mean the United States does it. This is a global coalition. I just came out of New York, where the EU is putting together a $40 billion aid package. The Germans are actively talking about a new Marshall Plan – and they use that term – and they’re hoping, though they’re not counting on, American participation. Their intent is to create an approach that both assembles a strategic process by which change can occur, and a set of strategic resources that can be applied.
Americans are nothing if they’re not impatient. It’s one of the greatest things about us. We’re impatient as a people. When I talk about a grand strategic approach for something like this, I get the hand up and someone says, “Where’s the $100 billion you need to fix everything by next Friday?” And it’s not going to be that way. We’re going to have to fight in some places, because these people are coming at us. And in those countries that are perennial producers of radicalized populations, we’ve got to get in there and help them change the circumstances that produce so many fighters. So it’s nuanced. It’s not a cookie-cutter approach. And it’s not next Friday.
TCB: You talked about a three-tiered, decades-long plan. How long do you see the current kinetic, combat phase of it lasting?
JA: I don’t know. It’s years. But if we are operating at the distant horizon and the deep horizon simultaneously, we can probably see all of this coming to a conclusion earlier. We’ll always have to fight. It’s the breadth and the width of the conflict that I think will be different.
TCB: Right now, the biggest immediate problem facing Americans is this proliferation of lone-wolf attacks we’ve been seeing recently. How does your strategy play into that, and is there anything more immediate that can be done to make Americans feel better about their own safety?
JA: We have had some pretty horrific events. They’ve been horrible. But what we have found is the solution doesn’t reside anywhere in taking away our liberties and freedoms. This is the great challenge we face in America: protecting our citizens without reducing their rights, without shrinking their space.
What we have found is that some of the most effective recruiting has been facilitated by difficulties associated with mental health, so that is a component of the solution that needs to be brought to bear. We are finding Muslim centers in some regions that are carefully staffed with clerics who truly represent the faith of Islam, and young Muslims who are confused about what they see on the Internet can go to these centers and have a human, face-to-face dialogue, rather than some guy in Raqqa (Syria) who’s coming at him over Skype or FaceTime. Where we have seen these be successful we want to push resources in those directions.
I don’t want to overstate my optimism in any way that this will end. You’ll never stop all of these folks. But the FBI and other police entities within this country have stopped a lot of them. As they continue to improve their coordination and their integration, as they continue to improve the ground-level engagement necessary with our Muslim citizens and Muslim communities, I think we’ll see we can get out ahead of this.
TCB: You’ve endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. You spoke at the Democratic convention. There’s a debate coming up, and the recent attacks are almost certain to come up. How do you recommend she address the question?
JA: The first thing I would say is that our Muslim citizens are Americans. They may worship in a different faith, but that does not mean they’re different from all other Americans. We should treat them in the same manner we treat anyone. What defines them should not be the fact that they’re a Muslim.
Where we find political rhetoric that vilifies everyone who’s a Muslim, or calls upon the dark forces that are at work in certain people that are seeking ways to emphasize our differences rather than trying to create an understanding of why we should be unified – I think that’s one of the great strengths of her campaign.
The other campaign relies on creating differences and divisiveness. It is awakening old emotions that most of us believed we had moved beyond as a people. I think she appeals to the emotions of the future, which are emotions based on all of us, together, making the country strong. I think she needs to continue to emphasize that.
TCB: You mentioned Yemen at one point in your talk. Where do you see the state of that conflict right now, and what role is it playing in the broader conflict?
JA: It’s a frozen conflict right now. The state was nearly a failed state anyway. Yemen has become a platform for al Qaeda. It’s become a platform for ISIL (also known as ISIS). The central government has largely ceased to exist. The Shia Houthi tribe, supported by the Iranians, have made some significant gains in the country, which prompted the Saudis to lead an Arab coalition against the Houthis, which is where you see the traditional cold war of the region between the Saudis and the Iranians playing out.
What we find is the Arab coalition is eye-deep in a conflict that’s very difficult to extract themselves from. I know it’s attracting a lot of the attention of the new [Saudi] deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who needs to do everything he can to work with us to extract the Arabs out of that conflict. They’re stuck, and they can’t get out.
And we’ve sort of run out of journalists. When you get through covering Syria and you get through covering Libya and you get through covering Iraq, there aren’t many journalists left to cover what’s another humanitarian catastrophe. The world knows things are terrible in Yemen, but I don’t think the world really understands the extent to which the social fabric of Yemen has collapsed, and Yemen has become a platform for some really ugly groups.
TCB: You talked about climate change as one the problems we’ll have to deal with. This is the only major country where that’s still a matter of debate. How does that play out in the rest of the world? How does that affect other countries’ confidence in us?
JA: It makes it look like we’re not serious. But I have to tell you, the Obama administration has tried to put that front and center as an issue for us. His climate change efforts in Paris, his conversations with the Chinese, where we’re the two greatest hydrocarbon residue producers in the world, the president’s emphasis on the oceans – I think all of that is very positive. There are irrevocable changes that are happening, and there is a role for the United States in both managing that change and leading the process of trying to manage that change. I’m not a political guy in the context of lining up with one administration or another, but I think to his credit, one of President Obama’s legacy items will be that he’s put a lot of emphasis on that.
Yet we still have segments of what we’d call the political elite that challenge whether there’s real science behind that. Well, how’d you like last summer, or the summer before that? Every one gets hotter, every one gets worse. It’s not just a matter of it sweating a little more – it has agricultural impacts. The weather has been enraged. The western part of the country is burning, the middle part of the country is being ravaged by really destructive weather, and the eastern and southern parts of the country are being flooded. It’s not a matter of conspiracy to me.
TCB: What’s the most visible manifestation of this overseas?
JA: Desertification. More countries are becoming desert. People have fewer options, and water is running out in parts of the world. And it’s not just a matter of stuff running out, it’s a function of us outrunning some of these resources. It’s because rivers are running dry, though in some cases they are running dry because of climate change, but the fact is we’re growing as a global population. You’ve heard me use the numbers: We’ll use 50 percent more energy, 40 percent more food, 35 percent more water by the end of 2050, and 2050 is just an artificial horizon. It gets worse after that.
TCB: The discussion at Georgia Tech today has been about how this struggle against extremist movements ends. How do you visualize that end state?
JA: The idea of this ending in some sort of Napoleonic, decisive victory is absolutely false. There is no end like that. The end comes from people who are visionaries, able to see at the deep horizon what we want to the world to look like — to envisage what that is; be able to articulate what that is; and talk about, in a reverse manner, what ways we organize, what resources we need, what areas we need to work in that can get us to the deep horizon.
Matt Smith is a freelance writer and contributing correspondent for The Cipher Brief. He has covered international affairs, science, energy, and environmental issues for a variety of outlets, including CNN and Vice News.
