Fighting the Islamic State: What about the day after?

[webfact]

Fighting the Islamic State: What about the day after?
James M Dorsey
RSIS


A Syrian boy

BANGKOK: -- US military operations against Islamist jihadists in Iraq and Syria risk repeating the West's failure to address the core grievances of populations in the Middle East

The beheading of a second American journalist and the execution of a British national have left US President Barak Obama and other Western leaders few options but to step up military operations against Islamist jihadists in Iraq and expand the battle into Syria.

The focus on confronting the militant jihadists however risks repeating the West's failure to couple military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya with policies that address post-conflict reconstruction of healthy, pluralistic societies. Similarly, the lack of support for more moderate rebels in Syria failed to take into account the consequences of allowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to squash his moderate opponents and enable the rise of groups that cast him in the role of a bulwark against terrorism.

Failure of war on terror

As a result, more than a decade after then US President George W Bush declared war on terrorism in the wake of al-Qaeda's spectacular 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, militant jihadists have morphed into lethal military organisations capable of conquering and holding territories in countries as far flung as Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria. The Islamic State, the militant Islamist group that controls a swath of Syria and Iraq, is moreover financially self-sufficient, reaping up to an estimated $1 billion a year in revenues from captured oil assets as well as extortion and kidnappings.

The rise of groups like the Islamic State or Boko Haram in Nigeria effectively signals the failure of the war on terror in eradicating Islamist violence or at least putting jihadists on the defensive. The exception may be Somalia where al-Qaeda affiliate Al Shabab has suffered loss of territory, but is still capable of launching deadly attacks in the capital Mogadishu or al-Qaeda itself which appears to have been more concerned in recent years with survival than with plotting an offensive global strategy.

At the core of continued Islamist successes, is the failure of the United States to embed counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency strategies into a comprehensive policy that addresses core grievances on which the Islamists thrive: a changing geo-political environment in post-revolt Middle Eastern and North African countries in which autocratic and sectarian rule as well as colonial-era national borders are being questioned, and the propagation of a puritan, intolerant interpretation of Islam by one of its closest allies, Saudi Arabia.

The failure disregards a rare acknowledgement by Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks that the United States had become a target because it had for decades emphasised stability in the Middle East and North Africa maintained by authoritarian rulers rather than the installation of regimes that catered to people's needs and aspirations. President Barak Obama's hope of minimising US military involvement in the Middle East with the ending of more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no real plan for the day after produced a return to the very policies that Bush identified as co-responsible for militant jihadist violence.

The confrontation with the Islamic State inevitably will involve an increased US military commitment albeit in cooperation with America's Western allies and regional forces like Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi military forces. It is an involvement that puts military action rather than politics at its core despite US pressure that led to the replacement of sectarian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki with an Iraqi leader who promises to reach out to the country's disaffected Sunni Muslim community.

Al-Maliki's rise as an authoritarian leader who monopolised the state's levers of power and alienated large segments of the Iraqi population in the process was in part the result of a US return to an emphasis on stability in a volatile part of the world rather than support for transition even if it is at times messy and produces problematic leaders.

So is the Obama administration's decision to drop pressure on Egypt despite the fact that the country has reverted to the repressive rule of a military commander-turned-president by an election that hardly could be deemed free and fair. As is the administration's treatment with velvet gloves of Saudi leaders who share a puritan Wahhabi interpretation of Islam with their jihadist detractors that subjects women to their male guardians, propagates intolerance towards those with alternative interpretations of religious texts, and encourage divisive, sectarian policies. Saudi da'wa, the proselytising of its religious precepts funded by the country's oil wealth, which kicked into high gear after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, has sparked intolerance in Muslim communities across the globe, such as in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Levelling the playing field

Decades of entrenched autocratic mismanagement and abusive rule in the Middle East and North Africa cannot be erased overnight. Similarly, they cannot be reversed by foreign intervention. Populations in the region will have to chart their own course in struggles that are likely to be volatile, messy and at times bloody. The US and others cannot do it for them.

They can however help in levelling the playing field by living up to their democratic ideals and adhering to Bush's realisation that US policies in support of autocratic regimes help create the breeding ground for ever more effective and brutal groups such as the Islamic State.

James M Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, co-director of the Institute of Fan Culture of the University of Wurzburg and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer, and a forthcoming book with the same title.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Fighting-the-Islamic-State-What-about-the-day-afte-30243865.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-23

[Seastallion]

" The failure disregards a rare acknowledgement by Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks that the United States had become a target because it had for decades emphasised stability in the Middle East and North Africa maintained by authoritarian rulers rather than the installation of regimes that catered to people's needs and aspirations."

I don't believe Bush capable of saying that sentence. He must have been heavily paraphrased.

That aside, it all comes back to US meddling, and before that British colonial meddling. A bit of French meddling too. (Ever notice former Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies, though poor, don't seem to have much strife?)

The solution must be drastic otherwise the turmoil will just be perpetuated.

Firstly, a truly united nations UN. And the first step to genuine unity would be to remove the powers of veto from the Security Council's permanent members. That veto is the greatest impediment to progress.

Secondly, a complete takeover of all strife-torn regions. Like it or not, we are taking over.

Thirdly, address the Israel problem. Bring them to heel and force them to obey international law at all times.

Fourthly, address the world's energy and water problems.

With those three problems managed, there will be less overt and covert motive for aggression from anywhere, and it would mean the US can remove it's velvet gloves when dealing with Saud.

[shirtless]

This will never end, the more the west is involved the more Jihadist s we create.What really worries me the most is we keep allowing these people to immigrate to our countries.

[Mosha]

What did Colin Powell tell him. You break it you own it. Yes he had help in breaking it from T Blair. who as we see is in a state of self denial. They broke it and left a massive vacuum behind. Sorry to say but democracy at all costs is not the answer.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Mosha

[Ulysses G.]

Firstly, a truly united nations UN.

That will never happen and it shouldn't. Too much of the UN is controlled by Arab oil and Arab oil money. The Islamic terrorism that they fund and control is the biggest threat to Western civilization today.

[webfact]

US and other nations begin air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, Pentagon says /BBC

[F430murci]

US and other nations begin air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, Pentagon says /BBC

Yep, bombing at this moment.

[kinmaew]

I swear the leaders of this world have no clue. John Howard (Prior Oz PM) is now "Embarrassed" that Saddam had no WMD. Quite a light word for all of the deaths of innocent civs where he is complicit with the yanks and poms and therefore responsible. When will western leaders get it through their thick heads, nuslims don't want democracy its a totally alien concept to them so if they want an islamic state let them have it and stay out of it and accept those into your country to help them if they reject this type of lifestyle. The wars since 2000 have achieved nothing except countless lives lost and billions spent that could have been used for healthcare.

[Seastallion]

Firstly, a truly united nations UN.

That will never happen and it shouldn't. Too much of the UN is controlled by Arab oil and Arab oil money. The Islamic terrorism that they fund and control is the biggest threat to Western civilization today.

Total rubbish. You forget that the US is controlling the Arabs who have money from oil.

Address the energy crisis and oil dollars mean nothing.

[F430murci]

*Deleted post edited out*

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Scott

[hard124get]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

[Baerboxer]

" The failure disregards a rare acknowledgement by Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks that the United States had become a target because it had for decades emphasised stability in the Middle East and North Africa maintained by authoritarian rulers rather than the installation of regimes that catered to people's needs and aspirations."

I don't believe Bush capable of saying that sentence. He must have been heavily paraphrased.

That aside, it all comes back to US meddling, and before that British colonial meddling. A bit of French meddling too. (Ever notice former Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies, though poor, don't seem to have much strife?)

The solution must be drastic otherwise the turmoil will just be perpetuated.

Firstly, a truly united nations UN. And the first step to genuine unity would be to remove the powers of veto from the Security Council's permanent members. That veto is the greatest impediment to progress.

Secondly, a complete takeover of all strife-torn regions. Like it or not, we are taking over.

Thirdly, address the Israel problem. Bring them to heel and force them to obey international law at all times.

Fourthly, address the world's energy and water problems.

With those three problems managed, there will be less overt and covert motive for aggression from anywhere, and it would mean the US can remove it's velvet gloves when dealing with Saud.

"Ever notice former Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies, though poor, don't seem to have much strife"

Let's see:

Indonesia - problems with riots against ethnic Chinese, various dictators, corruption and terrorist activity.

Brazil - massive corruption, police murdering street kids, prostitution, drugs, murdering tribes people for land, destruction of the environment

Latin America - massive drug cartels, Mexico lawless, corrupt governments, insurgency, assorted dictators, political persecution, people trafficking,

The former Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish colonies don't have much strife eh? Modern history not your strong point then?

As for your 4 solutions:

1. Won't happen. Do you see any of the members giving that up. Would quickly lead to WW3

2. Who is the 'we" who will be taking over? And who decides which regions are strife-torn?

3. Don't be silly. Are you anti Jewish? Do all the other countries and terrorists obey "international law" at all times, as in annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine or declaring massive no fly zones?

4. Who do you propose to do this - magic?

[Baerboxer]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

Russia helping it's neighbors ??

As in sending soldiers, weapons and other support to help them rebel against their country?

Or in teaching them how to shoot an airliner down and murder innocent people?

Russia is helping ethnic Russians as it suits it's own expansionist agenda.

[Berkshire]

I swear the leaders of this world have no clue. John Howard (Prior Oz PM) is now "Embarrassed" that Saddam had no WMD. Quite a light word for all of the deaths of innocent civs where he is complicit with the yanks and poms and therefore responsible. When will western leaders get it through their thick heads, nuslims don't want democracy its a totally alien concept to them so if they want an islamic state let them have it and stay out of it and accept those into your country to help them if they reject this type of lifestyle. The wars since 2000 have achieved nothing except countless lives lost and billions spent that could have been used for healthcare.

As simplistic as you're suggesting, that really is the best course....for the west to simply stay out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come from it. Any group that the US helps today will be our enemy in 5-10 years time. Only the Muslims can solve Muslim problems, the west only compounds it.

But then....there's the question of Israel. And the oil. What a mess that whole region is.

[ABCer]

OP, the answer to your question depends on what are you actually asking.

If you are asking about Syria and Iraq - the answer is these two countries will go Islam.

If you are asking about the Europe - the answer is it will go to Islam.

[Crazy chef 1]

heavy problems need heavy solutions.though stop those political correctness and so called human rights(imo who don't behave like a human has it lost anyway),unite the biggest armed force(the west,china and russia)) ever and wipe them out.

[Cats4ever]

. (Ever notice former Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies, though poor, don't seem to have much strife?)

Angola, Mozambique, Indonesia (Aceh & West Papua), Timor L'Este, Guinea Bissau, Western Sahara, etc.

Different types of trouble; trouble nevertheless.

[orosee]

US bombing a sovereign nation thousands of miles away, and at the same time condemning Russia for helping its neighbours.

"Islamic State" is a sovereign nation, recognized by the U.N. or any single state? Go home, you're drunk!

Ukraine on the other hand, is still a sovereign nation, a little bit less so now after Adolf Putin stole the Crimea.

[ABCer]

heavy problems need heavy solutions.though stop those political correctness and so called human rights(imo who don't behave like a human has it lost anyway),unite the biggest armed force(the west,china and russia)) ever and wipe them out.

Wow! Crazy chef 1, you may be #1, you may be a chef, but crazy you are not!

You sound almost like the fellow I met at the supermarket. His name was Nostradamus.

What you are talking about is the Stage 4 of the crisis.

Before this we need to see many more headless men, women taken as the spoils of war, buildings blown up, maybe even 'nukes' I heard about from their cheer squad. (Stage 1).

Than we will have to decapitate all our Politically Correct Politicians. Muslims aren't stupid to do this for us. (Stage 2).

After this it will be necessary to make sure there are no 'good, peaceful Muslims' living in our lands. (Stage 3).

BTW, this Nostradamus fellow sends his regards.

Dear Crazy Chef. Unwittingly you are talking about very distant future. Our present indicates that you are engaging in very risky talks with a view of possible suspention from TV or beheading.

May your Fatwah smile upon you.

Edited September 23, 2014 by ABCer

[canman]

I swear the leaders of this world have no clue. John Howard (Prior Oz PM) is now "Embarrassed" that Saddam had no WMD. Quite a light word for all of the deaths of innocent civs where he is complicit with the yanks and poms and therefore responsible. When will western leaders get it through their thick heads, nuslims don't want democracy its a totally alien concept to them so if they want an islamic state let them have it and stay out of it and accept those into your country to help them if they reject this type of lifestyle. The wars since 2000 have achieved nothing except countless lives lost and billions spent that could have been used for healthcare.

As simplistic as you're suggesting, that really is the best course....for the west to simply stay out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come from it. Any group that the US helps today will be our enemy in 5-10 years time. Only the Muslims can solve Muslim problems, the west only compounds it.

But then....there's the question of Israel. And the oil. What a mess that whole region is.

Many posters here missing the two real strategic imperatives for the US and the west to maintain influence in the ME:

Keeping the Russians and Chinese out

Stopping them from getting nukes

[wileycoyote]

I think we should be isolationist

[Steely Dan]

Hello, Elephant calling room. An OP based on a completely deluded premise I see, where blaming Bush is the misdirection of a magician trying desperately to distract from the core problem, which is Jihad. There is a clue in the article though, the nonsense about 'failure to build healthy pluralistic societies'. The region has never had these because it's a concept totally alien to the Arab world. The second a tyrant is removed, blood letting along tribal and above all religious lines invariably commences.

Perhaps, to drive the point home Charlemagne and the Franks would have been best advised in talking to the Moors about healthy pluralistic societies, with no Jizya, no forced conversions and no slave raiding instead of deciding on Crusades to the holy land. Or perhaps the Viennese should have thrown open their city gates to the Ottomans besieging it in the hope that a healthy pluralistic society would ensue as oppose to heads on spikes.

Yes Bush really has a lot to answer for, but it was his deluded religion of peace phrase, which has guaranteed failure to address the defining problem of our times.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Steely Dan

[Jean Pierre Jacquot]

Interesting article. However the article fails to point out the real issue: money.

This thing about combating terrorists is a total farce. 1. The US does not care about human rights around the world (as the article points out on the support of the Military Dictatorship in Egypt). 2. The US applies double standards who are terrorists and who not (Israel would be for long a terrorist state).

What the US is really afraid is that these islamic extremists are taking over a significant amount of territory and especially oil producing territory. That has always been there primary and only motive. Everything else are lies.

The US does what it deems necessary to protect US interests and safety, as does every other country in the world to the extent they can. I for one am grateful at the wonderful life and opportunities US has bestowed on me and my family.

It ain't about a popularity contest or trying to appease everyone. You can bellyache and whine all you want, but no one really cares and it won't change anything.

US is the first to step in when people need help, natural disasters occur, people are starving or a public health crisis happens somewhere around the world. If, however, you target us, our people or threaten our way of life . . . F with bull, you get the horns.

Obama has been weak, but our next President will act more decisively and hopefully be more proactive than reactive when it comes to American safety and welfare.

Typical cowboy mentality. That's what the US is famous for. That the US are the first to step in when people need help is however hilarious. They only step in if it is in their economic interest. Not that they are the only ones to do it like that though, but they should stop to play the savior role or imply their God when they a war.

Fortunately the US has lost a lot of its power so I am not so sure if the next President will fulfill the cowboy's dream. It might be more than he has to think first what Peking thinks about what he says and does. I personally prefer it like that as since the end of the cold war the US could do whatever they wanted which is a bad thing. Human beings tend to abuse their power, so a balance of power is needed in this world.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Firstly, a truly united nations UN.

That will never happen and it shouldn't. Too much of the UN is controlled by Arab oil and Arab oil money. The Islamic terrorism that they fund and control is the biggest threat to Western civilization today. alt=bah.gif>

The UN was never intended nor was it designed to function as a world government. So there is no surprise that it does not present any kind of unified control over any countries short of unanimous vote of the Permanent Security Council members.

About 81% of UN funding comes from about 17 nations of which there is not one Middle East country. So exactly how does Arab Oil and Arab oil money control the UN? The answer is it doesn't. In fact many people accuse the US as controlling the UN through its more than 20% contribution to UN funding.

[Ulysses G.]

Stop being overly pedantic. The Arab/Islamic block controls many votes in the United Nations and too many European nations tend to abstain or vote with the Arabs out of self interest - ie Arab oil. Only America's veto keeps them somewhat in line.

[kwaussie]

Its simple either go and nuke the lot or leave them alone to cut their own throats.

[mikiea]

baerboxer,what wound you up? you go givem hell :-)

[F430murci]

heavy problems need heavy solutions.though stop those political correctness and so called human rights(imo who don't behave like a human has it lost anyway),unite the biggest armed force(the west,china and russia)) ever and wipe them out.

Wow! Crazy chef 1, you may be #1, you may be a chef, but crazy you are not!

You sound almost like the fellow I met at the supermarket. His name was Nostradamus.

What you are talking about is the Stage 4 of the crisis.

Before this we need to see many more headless men, women taken as the spoils of war, buildings blown up, maybe even 'nukes' I heard about from their cheer squad. (Stage 1).

Than we will have to decapitate all our Politically Correct Politicians. Muslims aren't stupid to do this for us. (Stage 2).

After this it will be necessary to make sure there are no 'good, peaceful Muslims' living in our lands. (Stage 3).

BTW, this Nostradamus fellow sends his regards.

Dear Crazy Chef. Unwittingly you are talking about very distant future. Our present indicates that you are engaging in very risky talks with a view of possible suspention from TV or beheading.

May your Fatwah smile upon you.

??? Not sure if it is a medication needed issue or less medication needed issue, but that was whack. Entertaining though. Thank you!

[Seastallion]

I swear the leaders of this world have no clue. John Howard (Prior Oz PM) is now "Embarrassed" that Saddam had no WMD. Quite a light word for all of the deaths of innocent civs where he is complicit with the yanks and poms and therefore responsible. When will western leaders get it through their thick heads, nuslims don't want democracy its a totally alien concept to them so if they want an islamic state let them have it and stay out of it and accept those into your country to help them if they reject this type of lifestyle. The wars since 2000 have achieved nothing except countless lives lost and billions spent that could have been used for healthcare.

As simplistic as you're suggesting, that really is the best course....for the west to simply stay out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come from it. Any group that the US helps today will be our enemy in 5-10 years time. Only the Muslims can solve Muslim problems, the west only compounds it.

But then....there's the question of Israel. And the oil. What a mess that whole region is.

Many posters here missing the two real strategic imperatives for the US and the west to maintain influence in the ME:

Keeping the Russians and Chinese out

Stopping them from getting nukes

Too late.

[Seastallion]

Hello, Elephant calling room. An OP based on a completely deluded premise I see, where blaming Bush is the misdirection of a magician trying desperately to distract from the core problem, which is Jihad. There is a clue in the article though, the nonsense about 'failure to build healthy pluralistic societies'. The region has never had these because it's a concept totally alien to the Arab world. The second a tyrant is removed, blood letting along tribal and above all religious lines invariably commences.

Perhaps, to drive the point home Charlemagne and the Franks would have been best advised in talking to the Moors about healthy pluralistic societies, with no Jizya, no forced conversions and no slave raiding instead of deciding on Crusades to the holy land. Or perhaps the Viennese should have thrown open their city gates to the Ottomans besieging it in the hope that a healthy pluralistic society would ensue as oppose to heads on spikes.

Yes Bush really has a lot to answer for, but it was his deluded religion of peace phrase, which has guaranteed failure to address the defining problem of our times.

What we now call Spain was a beautiful example of pluralistic society, with all 3 major religions living in harmony....under the Moorish (Islamic) rule.