“We know how to deal with them,” said Vice President Joe Biden on the issue of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant earlier this month at the Harvard Institute of Politics. The United States has dealt with many terrorist organizations in the past, and ISIL is merely the latest iteration, he said. Though the current U.S. plan to defeat ISIL can contain it in the short term, stabilization of the areas that ISIL occupies will require diplomatic efforts beyond working with friends: enemies are needed as well.
The “JV Squad”, as President Obama characterized ISIL in January, has quickly become the most well-funded, effective, and ruthless group in Syria. ISIL, a predominantly Sunni jihadist group, aims to establish a caliphate through Syria and Iraq. It has already taken control of one-third of Syrian territory and two of the largest cities in Iraq. Though its ruthlessness is well known, it garners local support by providing vital services, such as electricity and water, to the populations it controls. This control of territory provides safe havens for ISIL to plan, train, and recruit.
On September 10th Obama presented a four-pronged strategy: airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq and across the border in Syria, 475 additional support forces fighting on the ground, coordination with allies to cut off ISIL’s funding and flow of foreign fighters, and increased humanitarian aid.
Though the airstrike campaign has quickly blunted ISIL’s offensive, the airstrikes inevitably result in civilian casualties and destruction, fueling anti-U.S. sentiment. Moreover, the ISIL strikes are exempt from the strict guidelines intended to stem civilian casualties that Obama laid out in an address last year. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human rights, which gets information from sources on the ground, reported that 20 civilians have been killed in the Syrian village of Kobane since mid-Setember. Omar Zafer, a resident of Eastern Syria, told the Los Angeles Times in late September that ISIL militants left their bases before the strikes and most casualties were among civilians. “Everyone is against the airstrikes and there is sympathy toward ISIS,” he said.
American airstrikes may cause ISIL to modify its tactics and integrate itself into more densely populated areas, posing greater dangers to civilian populations. Many ISIL commanders have experience with U.S. air power and know how to respond. As the effectiveness of pinpoint strikes diminishes, more bombs will be needed, increasing funds and the necessary number of aircrafts needed. “They hit us in some areas, and we advance in others,” said a Syrian ISIL fighter in a recent CNN interview. “If we are pushed back in Iraq, we advance in northern Syria. These strikes cannot stop us, our support or our fighters.”
Furthermore, for the airstrikes to be effective, capable troops on the ground will probably be necessary to recapture and hold the territory against ISIL. It is unlikely that the divided Syrian rebel groups will be able to accomplish this—there are already 1,100 American service people in Iraq to facilitate airstrikes and train local forces. Will 475 more make a difference? Furthermore, training Syrian rebels is a slow process. “It could take years, actually,” said retired General John Allen in a CNN interview.
Based on past U.S. experience in the Middle East, military solutions are only short-term fixes. Diplomatic and financial pressures are needed from the UN to build a coalition that will convince Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing ISIL and other extremist fighters; Turkey to stop allowing ISIL to cross into Syria over its border; and other U.S. allies in the region to avoid from arming all those in Syria who are against Assad.
Though Obama left out Iran in his speech to Washington, the United States must work with Iran to “degrade and ultimately defeat” ISIL, their common enemy. Unity of command and effort in Iraq will greatly strengthen the fight against ISIL, as the Iranians are well equipped to be effective boots on the ground. By engaging Iran and supporting Iraq, the U.S. has greater control over the fighting and distribution of power in the region.
The United States has a track record for collaborating with its adversaries, and it currently allies with countries that violate international standards. And though the United States does not officially condone Saudi Arabia’s draconian laws and beheadings, Biden explained that the country will remain a key collaborator. “It’s like saying we never should’ve collaborated with Stalin to defeat Hitler,” he said in response to a question after his speech at the Institute of Politics. “We knew he was an SOB from the beginning.”
The U.S. has managed to make headway with Russia as well, despite differences over Ukraine and harsh U.S. economic sanctions on Moscow. On October 14, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. and Russia have agreed to share more intelligence on the Islamic State. Clearly, constructive relationships can be built between nations to combat a common enemy, even if points of contention remain in other foreign policy areas.
Without boots on the ground and further diplomacy, Obama’s policy will likely only bring ISIL to a more manageable level, belying the president’s aggressive rhetoric to “destroy the terrorist group.” Biden, taking an optimistic and realistic point of view, said defeating ISIL will be feasible, but “it’s still going to be a hell of a long fight.”
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.