This is interesting:
[The] fight against [ISIL] represented a “new kind of U.S. war” that relies on U.S. special operations forces, drones, and close air support and outsources the war’s suffering and sacrifices to local soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. [emphasis added]
The framing is nonsense.
I'll leave aside whether it makes sense for those outside of the country fighting for its direction to be the ones caught in the crossfire. We experienced that crossfire on 9/11 as the Islamic Civil War over who defines Islam opened up a front (or more accurately, staged a propaganda mass snuff film to inspire their sick supporters) here in America.
The fact is, locals fighting for their own country is the natural situation. Relying on Americans to do the fighting for them in defense of their own country is the outsourcing of suffering and sacrifice--to America.
And the concept is nothing new when you consider the 1969 Nixon Doctrine:
First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense. [emphasis added]
Hell, go back to the Tripolitan War and Eaton's expedition in 1805.
Sending a hundred thousand or more American troops to fight is a sign that efforts to support local allies has failed and nothing else will work to get victory.
That is not the ideal situation for America. And I find it fascinating that observers have gotten used to the idea of 100,000+ American troops fighting in the Middle East. Without that many American troops in combat, people have difficulty seeing that America can now defend its interests there without that kind of troop commitment.
I will say that I was just as horrified as the author of that initial article that Iraq relied on the Counter-Terrorism Service in the Battle for Mosul. That battle chewed up troops and is no place for special forces. I guess I mostly assumed the CTS was just a grandly named force of decent troops rather than true special forces.
