Skip to content
Advertisement

World powers confront ISIS as latest threat to civilization

Advertisement
 (177479)

The deadly terrorist attacks last month in Paris, Beirut and in Mali have galvanized the world powers into a unified battle front against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The now regular bloody rampages orchestrated by the terrorist organization have resulted in an unexpected partnership between the Untied States and Russia—a military alliance not witnessed in 70 years—with many world leaders, counter-terrorisism experts, and civilians wondering if this could be the dreadful beginning of World War III.

The rapid increase in terrorist attacks and threats from al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS have western powers on edge. Killing sprees have taken place in Nigeria, Denmark, Turkey and as close to home as San Bernardino. The two jihadi terrorists who killed 14 persons and injured another 21 individuals last week at the Inland Regional Center have not been identified as members of ISIS, although reports indicated that Pakistan native Tashfeen Malik gave her allegiance to ISIS while residing in Saudi Arabia—even posting praise of the organization just hours before the attack and subsequent shootout with police.

War makes ‘strange bedfellows’

No one believes a war against ISIS will be an easy victory. Experts believe the traditional method of war with uniformed, identifiable fronts enjoining the battle will not occur. Instead, the fight today is more of a “cat-and-mouse” game relying primarily on intelligence gathering, and it may take many years for the West to realize victory. A more clear perspective on how long it may take to defeat the ISIS leadership may resemble the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden. ISIS has generally been described as a trans-border terrorist organization that uses extremist interpretations of Islam to wage war against non-believers, and there is considerable difference between defeating ISIS itself and eliminating its ideology of creating a self-ordained caliphate.

Approximately 63 nations are part of the latest military coalition fighting in the Middle East, including historic allies such as France, Great Britain, and allies of convenience like Russia and Iran. A unified Germany has also signed up to fight. Japan pledged its help to the United States shortly after 9/11.

ISIS’ terrorist activity is not necessarily linked to a certain place as much as it depends on the group’s goals of strengthening the idea of establishing a social incubator to facilitate the movement of its elements from one country to another. Its ultimate goal is to attract as many recruits as possible of whom it would train and control from its main bases in Iraq and Syria, then return these young people home to commit deadly acts in the name of what they understand to be Allah. The growing numbers of American and European fighters within the organization confirms that war on ISIS is of an international nature and does not concern a specific region or country. ISIS is now staging its operations from different geographical locations—from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE to Europe—to attract as many “soldiers” as possible to build its terrorist “state.”

The expanse of social media

Social media networks have become a mainstay of ISIS recruitment efforts, allowing for near instantaneous radicalization of young, impressionable minds bent on total destruction and capitulation of the West. The Internet giants such as Twitter and Facebook have yet to limit the ability of terrorist groups to benefit from the space social media networks offer them to spread their ideology. You cannot legally block websites in the United States and in Europe because such actions would clearly be an infringement on personal freedoms. And even if this were possible, such measures probably would not alter ISIS’ methods after Belgium Interior Minister Jan Jambon linked the PlayStation 4 network to the Paris attack, suggesting that the attackers communicated with contacts in Syria using unique encryption tools.

After the Paris attacks, French President Francois Hollande said “we are going to war which will be pitiless” to quell widespread disorder roiling much of the Greater Middle East and periodically spilling into the outside world which itself has plenty of experience fighting a “pitiless” war. The Soviet Union spent all of the 1980s attempting to pacify Afghanistan and succeeded only in killing about 1 million non-combatants while creating an incubator for Islamic radicalism.

In 2003, the United States began something similar in Iraq and ended up producing similarly destabilizing results. By the time America withdrew in 2011, an estimated 200,000 Iraqis had died, most of them civilians. Years of fighting exhausted the Soviet Union and contributed directly to its subsequent collapse. Many American citizens believe that years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan may have used up whatever “Let’s Roll!” combat energy Americans had following 9/11.

A protracted conflict with jihadists

Andrew Bacevich, author of the 2016 book “America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,” paints a sobering view of a possible world alliance against ISIS. He doesn’t believe the West can win such a war, noting that the United States, Russia and other European allies face a perplexing strategic conundrum as they find themselves locked in a protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism, even though the West enjoys the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. Bacevich’s book points out that the United States is stronger than its adversaries. Its arsenals are bigger, weapons more sophisticated, generals better educated, and fighters better trained at waging war. However, even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success (i.e. the ousting of an unsavory dictator), the results have yielded neither reconciliation, nor willing submission or even sullen compliance.

“Such an approach posits that, confronted with the responsibility to do so, the peoples of the Greater Middle East will prove better equipped to solve their problems than are policy makers in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris or Berlin,” he said. “It (the approach) rejects as presumptuous any claim that the West can untangle problems of vast historical and religious complexity to which Western folly contributed. It rests on this core principle: ‘Do no [further] harm.’”

On Dec. 1, the Pentagon announced that an elite new force of special operational troops will be deployed to Iraq to conduct raids against ISIS, capture its leaders and carry out “unilateral operations” in Syria. This is separate from a previous deployment of 50 special operations troops in Syria. “It will be a specialized expeditionary target force,” said Defense Secretary Ash Carter, carried out in coordination with the Iraqi government and to provide assistance to Kurdish pesmerga forces; the latter group is battling an incursion of ISIS forces from the Turkish border. The deployment was mentioned Dec. 6 by President Barack Obama in a rare Oval Office speech in which he also implored American citizens not to begin “… discriminating against Muslim Americans” because that plays into the hand of ISIS. He also called on Muslims around the world to confront those who are “… using Islam in a perverted way to harm or kill others.” Pentagon officials say Russian airstrikes have killed a minimum of 1,000 civilians primarily in populated centers like Raqqah where ISIS is known to build fortifications and conduct operations in residential areas.

Genocide in the 21st Century

ISIS’ planned genocide of Christians in Syria may bring back thoughts of World War II and the Holocaust. The scale is much smaller than that which Adolf Hitler commanded, but the threat is so profound that the world may come together and work toward eradicating the threat of the terrorist organization. ISIS escalated tension against Russia, when it bombed a Metrojet passenger plane in Egypt. Add to that the increased instability of the Middle East, and it is possible that the world is at the threshold of World War III, according to some defense experts. Phillip Mudd, a former CIA counter-terrorism expert, suggests that the West—America in particular—may be suffering from “Middle East fatigue” and may not have the will to place more young men and women into harm’s way.

“When this gets interesting to me is six months down the road, when a second-tier ISIS commander starts to create some sort of cell to recruit foreigners from Europe or the United States or Canada into Syria. You must ask yourself, ‘do we still have the will and capability, and the intelligence to locate that person—or that group of people—and put lead on the target?’”

Mudd cited photos of Christians in Syria being crucified, households stamped with the red Arabic letter N (i.e. Nazarene), and western ideology being replaced with strict Islamic doctrine as indications that this brewing war may involve more that simple territorial ambitions.

The Russian approach has proved difficult for fellow NATO forces. The Pentagon, in particular, has been highly critical of these methods, denouncing them as a blunt approach that lacks concern about the consequences of killing large numbers of civilians. “They are just using old-fashioned, mid-20th century technology and accuracy to sling lead along the battlefield,” said Army Col. Steve Warren, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad. “There are possibly upwards of 1,000 civilian causalities [in Syria] caused by the Russians.”

Solutions from presidential hopefuls

Like President George W. Bush following 9/11, President  Obama has said he will never endorse a war against Islam or anything resembling the Crusades of the Middle Ages. With the presidential election season well underway, all of the candidates have staked their territory over what are the best and most practical methods needed to destroy ISIS.

Jeb Bush, more than most candidates, has unique insight into the practicality and/or folly of sending American troops to fight in the Middle East. After the Paris attacks, the former Florida governor said he would send U.S. ground troops to oust ISIS from its capital of Raqqah. Obama ruled this out.

Hillary Clinton called for a “no-fly zone” and “safe areas” in northern Syria, measures that she called “an intensification” of present policy. In a rare instance of political convergence, Marco Rubio suggested a similar tactic. Obama has rejected this as well.

Donald Trump suggested the U.S. simply “… bomb the shit out of ISIS.” Everyone at the Pentagon has rejected this plan, because more bombing would only set ISIS back—it would not remove it from the territory it holds.

Ted Cruz wants to carpet-bomb (dropping unguided bombs) Raqqah, similar to the tactic employed by the United States over Dresden, Germany, during World War II. Pentagon officials ruled this out, as well.

Some presidential candidates have suggested a small number of U.S. soldiers (10,000) on the ground as part of a coalition that would eventually

Advertisement

Latest