With a new law, Kim Jong Un takes a page from the Soviet nuclear playbook to ensure payback.

The worst floods in memory may have occasioned a reset in relations, but Imran Khan could still prove a spoiler.

This week in FP’s international news quiz: Ukraine’s counteroffensive, the U.N. General Assembly, and Xi Jinping’s big overseas trip.

Leading lawmaker calls on Biden to address Zimbabwe’s “dire” authoritarian turn after the incident.

Review: The War That Is Testing America’s Patience The War That Is Testing America’s Patience... | View Comments ( )

NEW FOR SUBSCRIBERS: Click + to receive email alerts for new stories written by Jack Detsch Jack Detsch

“You may not be interested in war,” former Russian politician Leon Trotsky once allegedly said. “But war is interested in you.” Whether or not these words ever passed the lips of the Russian communist revolutionary and Soviet founding father, they find resonance in Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Gordon’s narrative of the ongoing U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a war that nobody in the White House really wanted but one that sought them out anyway. 

Then-U.S. President Barack Obama wanted 2014 to be his so-called year of withdrawals, Gordon writes in Degrade and Destroy: The Inside Story of the War Against the Islamic State, From Barack Obama to Donald Trump, cementing his legacy by bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan, already America’s longest war. (U.S. troops had left Iraq three years earlier.) And after using a NATO-led coalition to freeze the skies over Libya in 2011 in support of rebels opposing then-Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, Obama hoped any future U.S. intervention in the Middle East could be similarly cost free—or at least, with limited (if any) U.S. boots on the ground.

The Islamic State became a foreign-policy problem for the United States at the exact time that Washington was bound to be the least interested in dealing with it. Obama famously dismissed the militant group and other local al Qaeda offshoots and affiliates in the Middle East and Africa as the “JV team” (compared to what he saw as the more serious threat of the core al Qaeda organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks) in a New Yorker article in January 2014. Gen. Lloyd Austin, then the head of U.S. Central Command and now U.S. President Joe Biden’s defense secretary, reportedly characterized the Islamic State as a “flash in the pan” when advising Obama on the group, though a spokesperson for Austin at the time denied the general had ever considered the group that way. 

“You may not be interested in war,” former Russian politician Leon Trotsky once allegedly said. “But war is interested in you.” Whether or not these words ever passed the lips of the Russian communist revolutionary and Soviet founding father, they find resonance in Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Gordon’s narrative of the ongoing U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a war that nobody in the White House really wanted but one that sought them out anyway. 

Then-U.S. President Barack Obama wanted 2014 to be his so-called year of withdrawals,  Gordon writes in Degrade and Destroy: The Inside Story of the War Against the Islamic State, From Barack Obama to Donald Trump, cementing his legacy by bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan, already America’s longest war. (U.S. troops had left Iraq three years earlier.) And after using a NATO-led coalition to freeze the skies over Libya in 2011 in support of rebels opposing then-Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, Obama hoped any future U.S. intervention in the Middle East could be similarly cost free—or at least, with limited (if any) U.S. boots on the ground.

The Islamic State became a foreign-policy problem for the United States at the exact time that Washington was bound to be the least interested in dealing with it. Obama famously dismissed the militant group and other local al Qaeda offshoots and affiliates in the Middle East and Africa as the “ JV team ” (compared to what he saw as the more serious threat of the core al Qaeda organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks) in a New Yorker article in January 2014. Gen. Lloyd Austin, then the head of U.S. Central Command and now U.S. President Joe Biden’s defense secretary, reportedly characterized the Islamic State as a “ flash in the pan ” when advising Obama on the group, though a spokesperson for Austin at the time denied the general had ever considered the group that way. 

But the ability to ignore or downplay the Islamic State threat didn’t last long. By September 2014, the group had beheaded two American reporters on camera in separate incidents and controlled a swath of land bridging the Syrian and Iraqi borders that was perhaps as large as Great Britain , according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center’s estimates . By the end of the next year, it would carry out attacks on foreign soil, including in Paris. And U.S. troops would be back in Iraq, preparing to fight the terror group.

Degrade and Destroy: The Inside Story of the War Against the Islamic State, From Barack Obama to Donald Trump, Michael Gordon, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 496 pp., $30, June 2022

That the United States got sucked back into Iraq for the third time in as many decades probably didn’t surprise Gordon, who had covered for the New York Times both Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and the 2003 U.S. invasion that ousted then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as well as had written three books about U.S. wars in the region by the time the United States went back into Iraq in 2014.

Gordon picks up the narrative as the U.S. military—which had no legal agreement to house troops in Iraq after the 2003 war—began to descend into Baghdad on fact-finding missions. If the Islamic State was a JV team, like Obama said, it was one that was far more capable that anything the United States had seen before. Iraqi officials, already overstretched, described an infantry terrorist force that was laying waste to their front lines with car bombings and sophisticated assaults. “I will say it very bluntly. It scared the shit out of me,” retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Nagata, who led U.S. special forces in the Middle East at the time of the Islamic State’s rise, told Gordon. 

From there, Degrade and Destroy is a baton relay between different military figures who played a leading role in the campaign, with periodic stops in the White House Situation Room in a style that’s half-journalist Bob Woodward and half-British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart. As Iraq’s military wilted, Gordon writes, Obama faced greater pressure within his administration and from the Iraqis—who were relying on small Cessna airplanes for air cover—to send in remotely piloted drones and then air power. From the doves in the administration, like Biden as then-U.S. vice president, Obama faced pressure to keep the mission narrow—if there was to be a mission at all. 

Events, as Gordon’s book shows, would force Obama’s hand. The Islamic State’s massacre of Yazidis in Iraq’s northern Sinjar Mountains brought withering U.S. and British airstrikes that would become a staple of the fight, after U.S. Central Command had been lobbying for them for months. And the most promising ally to root out the Islamic State on the Syrian side of the border—the Kurdish People’s Defense Units, despised by Turkey—were pinned down by the terrorist group on one side and shut off from crossing the Turkish border on the other. With U.S. military power the only antidote, Obama approved airstrikes and air drops. 

If the battlefield was mostly the same over the course of three decades, the political climate in the United States was barely recognizable. What changed in the three decades since Operation Desert Storm, which saw U.S. air power flatten Hussein’s forces and drive them out of Kuwait in just over a month in 1991 , is not just the United States’ waning interest in seeking monsters to destroy but also the amount of military might the United States is willing to bear to defeat them. After events forced the Obama administration back into Iraq—and later, into Syria—the White House kept a vise grip on troop levels, Gordon writes, resisting an urge within the U.S. Defense Department to deploy U.S. air power and, upon relenting, trying its best to keep U.S. forces away from the front lines. 

But even though the Obama and then Trump administrations weren’t interested in the war, the war was still interested in them. By 2016, the Iraqi military was knocking on the door of Mosul, Iraq, and the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces were preparing for their climactic battle in Raqqa, Syria—the dual hubs of the Islamic State’s self-described caliphate. And U.S. military advisors, who were supposed to be just advising and assisting the Iraqi (and then Syrian) forces, were getting far closer to the front lines than some leaders were comfortable with: U.S. rules of engagement eventually had to be expanded to put U.S. troops closer to the front lines and give lower-level commanders the ability to independently call in airstrikes. It turned out that military advising isn’t a job for remote work.

If this book is a bit different from Gordon’s previous dry military histories, it’s because the war the United States fought in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State was different from its previous fights in Iraq. This is not a hard-edged battle memoir like journalist James Verini’s They Will Have to Die Now: Mosul and the Fall of the Caliphate or reporter Mike Giglio’s Shatter the Nations: ISIS and the War for the Caliphate . 

But Gordon’s voice-of-god-like narration helps show that there was a cost to trying to fight cost free. Deployments that limited troop rotations in Syria to 120 days, for instance, left U.S. troops near Islamic State lines, dependent on partner forces for protection and worried that they could become sitting ducks. “Nobody could say precisely how long the deployment would last, but it looked like it could be a ‘hello-I-must-be-going’ mission,” Gordon writes of the U.S. Army’s 5th Special Forces Group, which deployed to Syria’s Euphrates river valley after Trump had already twice called for U.S. forces to leave the country—only to be overruled by his advisors. “There was a paradox at the heart of the enterprise, which could be managed but never really resolved: [A]s the U.S. military footprint shrank and its capabilities diminished, the risk to the security of U.S. forces in Syria could mount.”

Even though I sat alongside Gordon at countless press conferences where military officials tried to lull reporters to sleep with the idea that all U.S. forces were doing was training, advising, and assisting, what he conveyed in the book is that they were doing so on a messy, multinational battlefield. Iran-backed militants were in the fight, and the United States had to deconflict airstrikes with their positions through Iraqi intermediaries. Washington had to accept that Iraqis had their own priorities if they were going to do the bulk of the fighting, and later, it had to learn the same lesson in Syria. 

And that’s the issue with “by, with, and through,” the Pentagon’s catchphrase for the mission that saw Iraqi and Syrian forces taking the lead in fighting the Islamic State, with air power and artillery assistance from the United States and other Western powers. The Obama and Trump administrations were often stuck, sometimes unsuccessfully, trying to dictate military strategy. In Mosul, as the Americans tried to open up a second front to attack Islamic State positions in the city, U.S. military commanders learned to keep their mouths shut with Iraqi politicians and make their arguments in private. “The Iraqis could not be ordered or even pressured to embrace the Americans’ strategy,” Gordon writes. Later, in Syria, the United States had to push the Kurdish leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces to mop up motorcycle-riding Islamic State hitmen in Arab areas even as Turkey assaulted their home turf. 

And the partnerships are more like shotgun marriages, with the United States sometimes having to hold its nose and work with groups that it finds unsavory or that, in other contexts, may even be U.S. enemies, as it did with Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq and al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria. With the Islamic State fight not designed or sold like a U.S. foreign-policy priority, it increasingly became a political albatross in a Trump administration that was weary of Middle East wars. Trump, himself, true to form, thought U.S. allies “should open their wallets and pay for it,” Gordon writes. 

This is also a story of unseen costs. Gordon’s portrait is helpful to explain how a military mission intended to be kept small took on dimensions of its own. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command sometimes conducted raids in Iraq without getting the top U.S. general leading the mission in Iraq and Syria’s sign off or without consulting Iraqi authorities. In one particularly hair-raising early episode Gordon described, U.S. Marine Raiders visiting their Kurdish counterparts in the Iraqi city of Duhok found themselves calling in airstrikes to shoot their way out of an ambush. “It was a lesson that the line between a special operations forces advisory mission and combat was a porous one and could shift in the blink of an eye,” Gordon writes. And all the while, the specter of U.S. and Iranian forces crossing paths in Iraq and Russian paramilitaries threatening U.S. troops in Syria loomed large. 

The narrative lets up at the end of the Trump administration, only dipping briefly into Biden’s periodic drumbeat of strikes against Iranian targets in Syria. Yet, in spite of it all, U.S. troops remain in both countries in minor advisory roles—an acknowledgement that the United States will have to stay present in the Middle East, if not happily so. Michèle Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official, recounted at an event for the book that a Middle East counterpart had once told her that while Americans think every problem can be solved, “[m]any problems in our part of the world can only be managed.” Unfortunately for Americans trying to divert their attention away from that region, that aspect of war in the Middle East has not changed.

Jack Detsch is a Pentagon and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @JackDetsch

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In.

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines, stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs. Comments are closed automatically seven days after articles are published.

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines. (Required)

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines. (Required)

U.S. officials fear that Africa’s Sahel region is becoming a melting pot of terrorist groups.

Ignore the naysayers—the long-prepared plan is a smart way to slash the Kremlin’s profits.

Ukraine may have achieved its biggest breakthrough of the war.

Reckless policies have knocked out established norms.

A great classical music tradition might die because of the Ukraine invasion.

Sign up for Morning Brief

By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy.

Expand your perspective with unlimited access.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Friday.

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent. Delivered Wednesday.

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture. Delivered Friday.

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week. Delivered Wednesday.

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors. Delivered Thursday.

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy. Delivered Thursday.

A curated selection of our very best long reads. Delivered Wednesday & Sunday.

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Saturday.

A monthly digest of the top articles read by FP subscribers.

In her role as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Samantha Power is often thrust into the forefront of some of the world’s biggest crises. From working to ensu... Show morere that Russia honors a U.N.-brokered deal to ship grain from Ukraine to helping to figure out how to get aid to cash-strapped Sri Lanka, Power plays an important role in everyday U.S. foreign policy.  How can the world solve the ongoing food crisis? How can Ukraine win the war? How can democracy be strengthened amid an autocratic surge?  Join FP editor in chief Ravi Agrawal for a wide-ranging interview with Power. As always, FP subscribers will have an opportunity to ask questions live.  This FP Live interview has been postponed and will be rescheduled for the fall. 

Last summer, the United States decided to end its longest war. But just days after the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan, Kabul fell—and the Taliban took control of the country. Aug.... Show more 15 will mark one year since the group has been in power.  How are Afghans coping with their new rulers? What are the internal policy spats within the Taliban? Has the international community done enough to assist Afghans? What does the future hold for the country?  For answers, watch FP editor in chief Ravi Agrawal's  in-depth discussion with Lynne O’Donnell, a columnist for FP detained by the Taliban in late July, and Michael Kugelman, the writer of FP’s weekly South Asia Brief.

Want the inside scoop on Russian arms sales to Africa? Care to learn more about how Ukraine is arming itself and how Beijing views Washington’s support for Taiwan? FP subscribers are alrea... Show moredy familiar with the work of Amy Mackinnon, Jack Detsch, and Robbie Gramer. Join them in conversation with FP’s Ravi Agrawal on August 9 at noon EDT to get a behind-the-scenes look at the biggest stories in global affairs.

The Ukraine war has given Astana a unique chance to frustrate Moscow.

The increasingly violent rivalry between Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran will decide Iraq’s future.

On Middle East politics, Jared Kushner is not the disruptor he says he is.

The former U.S. president took control of a party that had already destroyed itself, several new books contend, and his malign influence will long survive him.