Yesterday, I had a chance to catch up with Jeb Bush and discuss his recent speech at The Citadel, where he clearly opened the door to a ground combat presence in the fight against ISIS. I had three primary areas of inquiry. First, has he defined the extent of the troop deployment necessary to defeat ISIS? Second, in light of Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian jet, does he still think a no-fly zone is prudent? And third, if he were president how would he respond to the clash between Turkey and Russia?
On the first question, he declined to define the extent (or limits) of a troop deployment, and instead repeated and expanded upon what he said in South Carolina — contrasting his approach with President Obama’s. “Here’s what I’d do,” he said, “ask commanders to give me options to destroy ISIS.” If commanders said troops were necessary, then Bush would authorize their use. Obama, however, essentially said, “give me options that don’t involve civilian casualties or any boots on the ground.”
Bush then emphasized one of the most under-discussed issues in the air war against ISIS, the absurd rules of engagement that lead to three-quarters of American flights returning to base without dropping their bombs. He called the rules a “significant limitation” that are a “far cry” from the requirements of the laws of war. He is exactly correct.
I challenged him a bit on his support for a no-fly zone, asking whether defeating ISIS required courting aerial confrontations with Russia. He responded that the Turkish shoot-down occurred without a no-fly zone (a fair point) and that the lack of American leadership has created the chaotic situation in Syrian airspace (also true). But his no-fly zone proposal reflects the belief that we ultimately have to not just defeat ISIS but also replace Assad. A no-fly zone obviously weakens Assad more than it harms ISIS. Bush also said that he wouldn’t impose a no-fly zone without ”engagement with Russia,” but would engage “from a position of strength.” He characterized our current posture — with fifty special forces on the ground backed by pinprick air strikes — as “weak.”
Regarding the proper response to the Turkish/Russian confrontation, he was cautious. Without further facts on the location of the Russian jet and the events leading up to the clash, he wasn’t willing to commit to a course of action, but he did note that the incident could present the “means to repair a tattered relationship with Turkey.”
I’m still not convinced on the no-fly zone. It’s one thing to confront Russia when it is skirting Turkish airspace or actively bombing Turkish allies, it’s another thing entirely to believe we can effectively order Putin out of Syria without an extraordinarily dangerous escalation. But on the key question of the proper approach to fighting ISIS, Bush is exactly right. A commander-in-chief should choose between military options that grant the chance for victory, not place absurd political and ideologically-motivated restraints on the Pentagon and then order them to magically cook up a win. Obama has set the military up for failure. Bush advocates the opposite approach.
And it’s indeed heartening that Bush is focusing on the malignant influence of the Obama draconian rules of engagement. We’ve guaranteed ISIS safe havens not just in the heart of its territory but also on and near the battlefield itself. It’s an unsustainable strategy that prolongs the conflict, keeps the enemy in the fight, and ultimately costs far more civilian lives than it saves. Bush understands a legal and tactical nuance lost to most politicians.
Regarding Assad, I agree with Bush that replacing him with a more humane legitimate government is ideal, but we’re a long way from ideal in Syria. So far we have no plausible replacement, jihadists dominate the opposition, and Assad has strong regional and international allies. To his credit, I don’t see Bush as excessively optimistic in his approach. As he expressed in our conversation, he knows the situation is complex, that good options are few, and that effective leadership will require flexibility in response to changing events.
Bush has been fading in the polls, but he’ll have multiple chances between now and the Iowa caucuses to make his national security case to primary voters — and to his opponents. If he can challenge candidates who offer the voters the same kind of magical thinking as President Obama — that we can defeat ISIS without having to make the truly hard choices regarding American troops — then win or lose he’ll make the right kind of contribution to the race.