Operation Inherent ResolveEdit

Operation Inherent Resolve (Operation Inherent Resolve) is the U.S.-led coalition effort aimed at dismantling the Islamic State, a terrorist organization that seized large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria starting in 2014. The mission, undertaken in partnership with local security forces and regional partners, seeks to degrade ISIS’s capabilities, deny it sanctuary, and support the restoration of governance in liberated areas. The campaign relies on a combination of air power, special operations, and a training-and-equipping program for local forces such as the Syrian Democratic Forces and various Iraqi units, with the broader objective of preventing a return to sustained territorial control by the group.

The operation is framed around a long-term, prudent approach to counterterrorism that prioritizes regional stability and local responsibility. Rather than pursuing a large-scale, open-ended military occupation, the mission emphasizes pressure on ISIS networks, finances, and leadership while enabling legitimate governments in Iraq and Syria to reassert sovereignty over their territory. The effort also encompasses stabilization programs intended to help liberated communities recover, resume public services, and resist a relapse into extremist governance stabilization.

Background

ISIS rose from the remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq and exploited the collapse of state institutions in parts of Iraq and Syria amid regional conflict dynamics. The group imposed a brutal version of governance, including executions, sectarian repression, and systematic destruction of cultural heritage. The Western-led coalition formed to counter the threat, drawing on airstrikes, intelligence sharing, and ground-based support to local partners. The legal and policy framework for the operation grew out of ongoing support for regional partners and the broader U.S. strategy of countering terrorists who threaten allied citizens and global security.

Key theaters of operation included urban battles that tested coalition cooperation and local capability. The campaign targeted ISIS-held cities such as Mosul and Raqqa, with the aim of reclaiming territory and degrading the organization’s logistical networks. Alongside battlefield success, the effort sought to deny ISIS revenue streams, including illicit oil sales and taxation, while supporting stabilization and governance to prevent a power vacuum from reemerging.

Objectives and Approach

The stated objectives center on defeating ISIS as a functioning force, denying it safe haven, and stabilizing liberated areas to foster sustainable, local governance. The approach prioritizes:

  • Cooperation with local security forces and trusted partners to take the lead on ground operations, with international support focused on enablers rather than large-scale occupation.
  • Targeted military measures—principally air power and advice-and-assistance—paired with efforts to disrupt ISIS finance and logistics networks.
  • Stabilization, reconstruction, and governance support to reduce conditions that could spawn renewed extremist recruitment or sectarian conflict.
  • Multilateral coordination with regional players and allied governments to ensure a comprehensive response that avoids unilateral overreach while maintaining pressure on the ISIS leadership.

The strategy also emphasizes avoiding the creation of long-term dependency on foreign forces for routine security, instead fostering capable local institutions that can sustain security and governance after coalition alignment ends.

Military Campaign and Tactics

The campaign has integrated air campaigns, intelligence-driven targeting, and special operations to pursue ISIS leadership and networks. Ground success has depended on local forces that can operate with legitimacy in the eyes of their populations, as well as international partners that provide training, equipment, and intelligence support. Notable milestones include:

  • Recapture of key urban centers from ISIS control, reducing the group’s territorial caliphate and disrupting its ability to project power.
  • Elimination or containment of ISIS leadership figures and operational cells to degrade the group’s command-and-control capabilities.
  • Disruption of ISIS revenue networks, including illicit oil, antiquities trafficking, and illicit taxation, to limit resources available for recruitment and expansion.
  • Stabilization and governance initiatives in liberated areas to enable returning civilians to resume normal life and to foster local resistance to extremist recruitment.

These efforts have required persistent coordination among Iraq, Syria, international partners, and the local populations affected by the fighting. The campaign has also involved shaping diplomatic and regional dynamics, including engagement with neighbors and regional powers whose interests intersect with ISIL’s trajectory.

Local and Regional Partnerships

A central pillar of the operation is the partnership with capable local forces. In Iraq, the Iraqi security apparatus—army units, police, and tribal or community-based formations—has been essential to field operations and post-conflict stabilization. In Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces have provided a substantial ground component in several theaters, with the coalition supplying training, air support, and intelligence. The evolution of these partnerships has required careful management of regional sensitivities, including:

  • The balance between stabilizing local governance and managing long-term security commitments in contested zones.
  • The tension between supporting allied groups and addressing concerns about human rights, civilian protection, and governance legitimacy.
  • The challenge of coordinating with regional actors that have divergent strategic aims, particularly around the future political order in Syria and the status of different ethnic and sectarian communities.
  • The Turkish alliance and its interests, which sometimes intersect with Kurdish forces, creating a complex diplomatic environment for stabilizing efforts in northern Syria and adjacent areas.

Controversies and Debates

Like any long-running counterterrorism operation, OIR has generated a spectrum of criticisms and debates. From a pragmatic, security-focused vantage point, several themes stand out:

  • Civilian harm and displacement: Airstrikes and ground engagements have caused civilian casualties and contributed to displacement in affected regions. Advocates for a narrow, risk-aware counterterrorism approach argue for stronger protective measures and more precise targeting, while critics contend that the scale of collateral damage undermines legitimacy and fuels further extremism. Proponents note that ISIS itself was responsible for indiscriminate violence and that the coalition’s aim is to reduce overall civilian harm by removing ISIS’s operational capability.
  • Occupation versus partnership: Critics of long-term foreign troop presence argue that the mission should avoid open-ended occupation and instead empower legitimate local authorities. Supporters contend that steady foreign support—carefully scoped and time-limited—is necessary to prevent ISIS from reviving, especially in the face of a resurgent insurgency.
  • Alliances with controversial partners: The coalition’s work with local militias and regional partners has at times included groups with disputed human rights records. From a security-first perspective, the practical argument is that the priority is to deny ISIS a foothold, even if it requires working with partners whose governance practices may be imperfect. Critics care about the long-term implications for civil liberties and regional stability.
  • Burden sharing and regional strategy: The operation highlights tensions over who pays for stabilization, reconstruction, and governance in liberated areas, as well as how to align regional rivalries with a coherent strategy for defeating ISIS without creating a dependency on outside powers.

In discussing woke criticisms, supporters of the approach often argue that concerns about pathologies of big-government or bureaucratic overreach should not obscure the fundamental counterterrorism objective: removing an existential threat, reducing the risk to civilians in the long run, and enabling local authority to emerge from a period of conflict. They contend that focusing narrowly on ISIS’s defeat—while pursuing legitimate governance and reconstruction—delivers tangible security dividends that smaller, less intrusive interventions could not achieve on the same scale.

Outcomes and assessment

ISIS lost its territory, its governing apparatus, and the ability to project power across broad swaths of Iraq and Syria during the height of the campaign. The coalition-advised forces and local partners were able to retake strategic cities and degrade the group's operational capabilities. Yet the threat has not disappeared; ISIS-inspired and affiliated networks retain the capacity to conduct insurgent-style attacks, necessitating continued, targeted counterterrorism efforts and stabilization work in places recovering from conflict.

The stabilization component seeks to prevent a relapse by restoring essential services, supporting governance and the rule of law, and facilitating the return of displaced populations. Ongoing security cooperation with partner nations remains important to deter a reconstitution of ISIS infrastructure, and regional diplomacy continues to shape the broader environment in which counterterrorism efforts operate. The end-state remains a region where local authorities can sustain security and governance without persistent external military presence.

See also