Obama Security Advisor 'Ground Forces in Syria Are Not Sustainable'

Ben Rhodes, US President Barack Obama's deputy national security advisor, discusses the similarities between the Paris attacks and 9/11, the security risk posed by the refugee crisis and why the US won't send ground troops to Syria.

A Russian photo showing an attack on a supposed Islamic State oil facility in Syria.

A Russian photo showing an attack on a supposed Islamic State oil facility in Syria.

Interview Conducted by

SPIEGEL: The attacks in Paris had many similarities with 9/11: Both were apparently planned in regions under the control of terrorists. Will we see an intervention in Syria like the one that took place in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks?

Rhodes: While the impact in Paris is on par with how people in New York felt after 9/11, there are important differences between al-Qaida and ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, another name for Islamic State). The President believes that the lesson we have to take away from the last decade is that ground invasions and occupations of countries in the Middle East are not the most effective way of addressing terrorism, because they are costly and difficult to sustain, but also because you are going to need a mixture of anti-terrorism efforts and local political stability and partnership in these countries. Instead of a response that would involve a ground invasion with essentially the international community taking ownership of all events on the ground in Syria, we believe it is better to pursue the approach that we are taking: military action and strikes, but we're supporting forces on the ground that can ultimately hold territory that is taken from ISIL while trying to pursue political resolution to a civil war inside of Syria.

SPIEGEL: After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time. It calls for collective defense, meaning that an attack against one member state is considered an attack against all member states. Does NATO's Article 5 apply in the current situation?

Rhodes: That's entirely a decision for the French. We are already in a military operation with the French in Syria. Many NATO countries are part of the ISIL coalition, but they're going to have different roles in the counter-ISIL campaign. This will not look like Afghanistan, where you had a significant investment of ground forces from different NATO countries.

SPIEGEL: Would NATO forces in Syria send the wrong signal?

Rhodes: Yes. It's not simply a reluctance to commit ground forces. It's a belief that that's not a sustainable approach. Were you to introduce significant foreign ground forces, they might be able to push ISIL out of an area, and when we hold that area, would that lead to a situation like we had in Iraq where you end up fighting a terrorist insurgency? The sustainable approach is for people to take and hold their own communities with our support.

SPIEGEL: Can you imagine a situation in which President Obama would authorize American troops on the ground in Syria?

Rhodes: He has authorized Special Forces, although they won't have a role in which their mission is to engage in combat with ISIL. We don't think that, in the long term, foreign forces can occupy and govern these countries. We've taken that lesson from the Iraq war. If you look at the origins of ISIL, it was al-Qaida in Iraq and their integration with the Iraqi insurgencies. At some point, the cycle of conflict has to be broken.

SPIEGEL: The only really effective force in Syria that might be able to take territory from ISIL seems to be the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which are affiliated with the PKK. Why doesn't America offer the Kurds additional support with heavy weapons?

Rhodes: We have seen that in northern Syria, we have been able to make progress against ISIL by arming those forces and providing coordinated air strikes. One of the things that's going to be important, though, is that it is not simply Kurds, but also Sunni Arab forces that are part of the advance against ISIL around Raqqa and in eastern Syria. The US Special Forces contingent that we recently announced would go into Syria has been, as one of its principal missions, helping to facilitate the success of those operations by providing advice.

SPIEGEL: In Vienna, diplomats from the Middle East, Russia and the West are discussing a possible political solution for Syria. Is it not necessary to establish a similar forum for the coordination of military activities -- even with Russia and Iran?

Rhodes: I certainly would not envision any military cooperation or coordination with Iran. In terms of Russia, what we have established with them is the ability to de-conflict our operations so that we have channels of communication and we can avoid operating in the same areas in ways that could prove dangerous. That is not at the level of coordination. It's at the level of de-confliction at this point. Thus far, we have seen the majority of Russia's strikes in Syria against non-ISIL opposition targets. We have urged the Russians to focus their military efforts on ISIL.

SPIEGEL: In the wake of the Paris attacks, there have been discussions in Europe about whether refugees pose a threat. What's your view?

Rhodes: We believe it's important that, even as we are focused on this sort of terrorism, there is a humanitarian challenge, and it's going to be important for there to be a continued focus on how we're providing assistance to displaced people and recognizing the enormous challenges associated with the refugee flows. We recognize that this is going to continue to be difficult, but there has to be a process by which you can focus on intelligence that disrupts terrorist plotting and identify who is a threat, but when you have displaced families, that there's some safe haven for people who are incredibly vulnerable. There is going to have to be some continued investment in terms of welcoming Syrian refugees to different countries who are in the coalition, including the United States for that matter. This is an area where President Obama has much admiration for what Chancellor Merkel has done thus far.

About Ben Rhodes
  • AFP
    Ben Rhodes, one of Obama's closest advisors, is deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speechwriting. He wrote Obama's famous speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and has helped shape Obama's foreign policy.


Discuss this issue with other readers!
6 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
mdk4130 11/20/2015
1. Military Nonsense
All this means is Mr. Obama has no interest in defeating ISIS. Constantly using the military mistakes of the past as an explanation for failing to employ a decisive involvement today does not mean if we take action to defeat ISIS we will repeat them again. Unless we're assuming we're stupid.
suebenbarr 11/22/2015
I think the usa learned form JACK Kennedy srew up in Vietnam you cannot win on their home turf. England learn it to , the revolutionary war with america
afrikaneer 11/24/2015
3. Borderline
In the realm of political cynicism and shrewdness, Putin and The Western Leaders occupy a prominent place. The similarity between these leaders and Mr. Putin ends there. Mr. Putin has the guts to pursue a world Order of his liking relentlessly and he is succeeding. Of all the West leaders, President Obama and his advisers (Mr. Rhodes included) could have made a difference in Syria, but they preferred to ignore it. Nobody suggest sending ground forces to the Syria hell hole, but Mr. Putin has the upper hand thanks to Mr. Obama lack of world leadership and his unfortunate choices in US foreign policies. Can Mr. Rhodes explain how NATO or the US would defend the allied nations in the region from Iran, Assad and Hezbollah forces (170,000 men armed to the teeth)?- By the same token, what leverage John Kerry has in the Vienna talks or thereafter? Conceivably, the economic sanctions against Russia or abandoning Ukraine, Baltic Nations, and Poland to Mr. Putin. The West will pay dearly for the acquiescence of Mr. Putin wishes in Syria.
mgaijer58 11/26/2015
As a free society, all of us world wide are seeing what was foretold in the scriptures. We are at war whether or not it has been declared by our leaders. It is a war of survival of faith, cultures and ways of life. Many will sell their fellow man out for a few bits of silver or favours only to be the slaves of their new masters for all eternity. Stand now drive the evil out, make no distinguish between Past and Now, for it will deceive you. Genocide is not the answer for many of our foe are but slaves themselves. We must defeat the enemy by removing its head first, In this case their religious leaders and then the funders of these enemy armies and finally their faithful Legions of followers.
khaganadh 11/27/2015
Obama is actually scared that ISIS could make a joke of his legacy,if he puts boots on ground n Syria.Morever,his schtik is,as he declared for his 2012 campaign,war has receded and the Islamist terrorists are on the run !He thus cannot open his eyes and see what is going on in Syria and elsewhere.
Show all comments
Page 1

All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with permission

Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.