President Barack Obama has set his course for the U.S. conflict with the so-called Islamic State (IS). The deep roots of the extremist organization, the chaotic conditions in Iraq and Syria, and Obama’s determination to limit American involvement will make this a long slog. Months, even years will pass with few demonstrable gains. Whoever moves into the White House after Obama will inherit the crisis. Over time, though, the situation will undergo major shifts, each forcing the United States to re-examine its strategy. To be ready to exploit opportunities and avoid risks, American leaders must anticipate what the big “game changers” in the conflict may be and what they may mean.
At this point there seems to be five plausible game changers: a significant shift in U.S. domestic attitudes toward military interventions; a terrorist attack inside the U.S.; the collapse of the Iraqi government; the consolidation of IS into a functional political movement; or a major outside crisis that draws U.S. attention away from the Middle East.
The first two of these would drive the U.S. toward a more aggressive stance involving more direct action, potentially including the involvement of American troops in combat. For example, there might be a major shift in domestic U.S. politics, particularly within the Republican Party. Today the GOP is deeply divided on national security. One group—commonly called “neoconservatives” even though the label is not entirely accurate—is the heir of the Reagan approach based on active global leadership bolstered by a strong defense. They have been highly critical of Obama's lack of assertiveness and hesitancy to use military force. The other Republican faction combines libertarians, traditional advocates of “small government” and the Tea Party movement. This group favors some degree of strategic retrenchment and a diminished commitment to the security of other nations to allow cutting the defense budget. The Democratic Party has its own equivalent divisions between liberal interventionists and anti-militarists.