Name: ISISについてどうするか (What To Do About ISIS)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T05:35:14.000Z
Duration: 1 h 16 min 37 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

MODERATOR: Today's meeting is one is a series of meetings called the "What to Do About,"

基礎受動態

in this case�in today's case ISIS. This meeting is designed to be a little different

様態の副詞

from our usual Council on Foreign Relations meetings, in that we are loosely simulating

a National Security Council meeting. As the national security advisor, I will try and

interrupt frequently. I will try and ask a lot of questions so we can discern a matter

of answers so that we might be able to put a policy prescription before the president.

After all, that's our job on the National Security Council.

So the way we'll structure this is that we will begin with�I will begin with what I

believe to be the current U.S. policy vis-a-vis ISIS. We will turn as a group to discuss what

we believe the policy to be and the way it is working. We will expand it to a conversation

about the strategic interests of the United States and the region, and then finally we

will try and develop some policy options. Assuming that we don't have consensus and

that these distinguished panelists have recommendations for the president, we will try and hammer

out what those are. And like any typical NSC meeting, I expect

it to end inconclusively and resolve that we need more meetings to come up with a new

policy. So let me begin with a brief scene-setter

to get the ball rolling, and I will then turn to our distinguished guests and introduce

them as I pose a question to them. Our ISIS policy seems to begin with Iraq first and

then Syria. Let's start with Iraq. Our policy seems to be that we support the Iraqi central

government and we encourage them, especially through the departure of Prime Minister Maliki,

to have an inclusive government. But the heart of our policy seems to be military

airstrikes upon ISIS, apparently to help the peshmerga on the ground and also the Iraqi

security forces in the ground part of this particular campaign. The U.S. is of course

engaged in striking military targets today and we should explore whether we need more,

what that means and whether that should be expanded, perhaps beyond the advisory role

that our U.S. servicemen and women are in now, and whether we perhaps should even commit

more ground troops�or ground troops to the effort.

Finally, the state of the Iraqi security forces is unclear. In many cases some of their success

is at least in part attributed to the Shiite militias operating across the region. We should

discuss whether we think we are winning today, and ultimately whether U.S. interests are

being served when apparently, if we believe it to be true, that the U.S. is, as BOOT has

put it in an article, being the air force for the Iraqi Shiite militiamen.

Finally, we need to discuss what our posture should be vis-a-vis the Kurds. They are very

frustrated that they haven't received arms directly from the United States and they are

angry about our policy that everything should be done by, with and through the central government

in Baghdad. And finally, we'll turn to Syria. We've hit

some targets there but our policy is ostensibly to arm the moderate rebels so that they may

become more of a fighting force, to force a stalemate in Syria so that eventually we'll

be able to get to peace talks. And then as I understand our policy to be, we will then

insist on the departure of Assad. We need to discuss also whether in our campaign

to defeat ISIS, whether Assad must go, or whether we need to make greater common cause

with him as we move forward on the campaign. Janine, let me start with you. You are a senior

fellow for defense policy here at the Council on Foreign Relations. You are a former pilot

and Air Force officer. When you were deputy assistant secretary in the Obama administration,

you were charged with reviewing strategic plans and military contingency plans.

As recently as August, you wrote that America has no policy to stop ISIS. Do you still believe

that, and can you give us some sense of what is happening on the ground today? Is our policy

working, and are we making progress against ISIS?

DAVIDSON: Well, thank you for presiding and for the overview. I think you pretty much

get the outlines of what's happening pretty much correct. I think what is happening now

is that there is a recognition that there is no short-term, there is no purely military

and there is no purely United States approach to this that is going to solve it, that is

going to win, that is going to defeat ISIS. So, what we have is a�we have is a policy

to defeat ISIS, but we have actions that have been sort of slow. So we may have missed a

few windows actually. We can get to that a little bit later, but to the extent that we

need to arm a moderate rebel force in Syria, where are they? Where - what�what's left?

On the military side, there�I think that the outlines of the military strategy is about

right for the Iraq peace <ph>, but it is a bit of a Rubik's Cube, because you can't just

address the Iraq issue. You have to address the ISIS issue, which is a cross-border issue,

and that's what I meant originally to say�when I said we don't have a strategy against ISIS.

We have an Iraq strategy. We don't have much of a Syria strategy.

MODERATOR: Well, let me�let me press you on that a little bit. As an Air Force officer,

is the air�is the air campaign working? DAVIDSON: Yeah. I mean, the air campaign is

working to the extent that it's not going to solve the problem. It is necessary, but

not sufficient. The air campaign is necessary but not sufficient, just like military action

in general is necessary, but not sufficient. What I mean by that, is it is very clear that

compared to last summer, when we had this lightning sweep across Iraq of ISIS, that

kind of�that kind of activity has been put in a box. Airstrikes can suppress that. They

aren't�they�they aren't able to mass forces and do what they need to do to continue to

take territory, so they've�it's like a Band-Aid on a problem.

To get the next step, however, in a military way, you're going to have to go into the cities,

and that's where airpower is a�is a lot less definitive. You can't win wars with airpower

alone. MODERATOR: Well so, let's talk a little bit

about that. Max is a distinguished author and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign

Relations. You've been a scholar on counterinsurgency activities and terrorism in generally. From

some of your writings you seem to be a skeptic of the air campaign. You wrote very recently

that we are serving as Iran's air force, as the individuals on the ground apparently doing

most of the heavy lifting are the Shiite militia forces, apparently armed and trained by Iran.

Can you give us a sense of whether you believe the current policy of airstrikes is working,

or are we ultimately employing a self-defeating policy by enabling Iran to exercise still

more influence in Iraq? BOOT: Well, if the objective is to increase

the Iranian stranglehold on Iraq, then I would say the policy is working brilliantly. But

I would question whether that should be our in fact our policy. And in fact, I think we

need to widen the aperture a little bit when we're�because I think one of the issues

here is that the administration has been so narrowly focused on trying to combat ISIS,

it has lost sight of the bigger picture, which is that if we can push ISIS out of Iraq, and

theoretically maybe we are on a trajectory where that might be possible by the end of

the year, you know, knock on wood, fingers crossed, et cetera, but even if we are able

to do that, if the price of doing that is to deliver Iraq into the hands of the Iranian

Quds force, that is a poor bargain to my mind. So what we really actually need is a strategy

that is not just counter-ISIS, but counter-radicalism and extremism throughout the Middle East of

both the Sunni and the Shiite persuasion, and we should not be losing sight of the bigger

picture here, as in fact I think we are doing, because right now, you know, we are bombing

certainly. But if you look at, for example what is happening

in Tikrit, maybe it's the case that Iraqi forces have taken Tikrit. Who knows? They've

claimed victory a number of times in the past. But let's say that's true. I mean, you have

got to be�you got to be pretty credulous if you think that the Iraqi forces that are

taking Tikrit are actually the Iraqi army forces.

And leaving aside the fact that a lot of the Iraqi army forces are probably affiliated

with Abad (ph) organization and other militia groups to begin with, the reality is, I mean