The ISIS Conundrum

The rise of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) seems to be ripped out of a novel with far too many turns after its climax. The United States has ended its original war in Iraq and is now in the process of winding down its other war in Afghanistan. In 2011, President Obama announced his so-called “pivot to Asia,” a badly timed statement that was supposed to majorly define American foreign policy. By all indications, the United States was supposed to have been slowly shifting its attention away from the Middle East to other, more strategic interests. Instead, we are getting sucked back into the region because of poor decisions and an embarrassingly incoherent game plan for the region. This, among other factors, has directly led to the rise of new insurgent groups that are once again threatening the region and imperiling all the efforts we have made over the past 15 years.

ISIS is an extremist Sunni Islamist group. It has misconceived notions of restoring an Islamic empire, or Caliphate, over Iraq, Syria, and other territories, ruled by its brand of extreme interpretations of Islamic law. Although many of the leaders and individuals of the group began in organizations like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ISIS had its most clear origins from the development of a U.S.-backed Shiite Iraq government that has steadily repressed Iraq’s minority Sunni population. The new Iraqi government has discriminated against Sunnis, excluding them from all societal sectors of importance. Former PM Nouri al-Maliki was a Shia hardliner who alienated his Sunni citizens with harsh rhetoric and even worse treatment. ISIS rose up as a band of insurgents against this oppression, against a government that the U.S. has propped up with its military, team of advisors, and huge sums of taxpayer money.

Moreover, the U.S. spent years and billions of dollars training the Iraqi army to provide for its own nation’s security, yet many of these soldiers fled when ISIS came near, allowing the group to steal caches of U.S.-provided weapons and resources. ISIS has scared away government security forces, gained control of large areas of Iraqi and Syrian territory, and terrorized all citizens who do not subscribe to their extreme version of Islam. The country is again sliding towards sectarian violence because the U.S. supported an exclusionary and oppressive government in an area where it was supposed to be building a democracy.

At the request of the Iraqi government, President Obama is committing air strikes against this group. Alarmingly, the U.S. has also invoked the right to hot pursuit, in order to go after ISIS militants in Syria. This right is an old, globally recognized norm that once allowed nations to pursue pirates into international waters; the Obama administration is now adapting it in a modern setting. Aside from relying on an archaic norm that provides shaky legal coverage, the U.S. is aiding the Syrian regime by destroying Bashar al-Assad’s enemies. Obama’s refusal to do anything substantive regarding Syria’s civil war has allowed room for a paradox: officially, we want Assad, who has committed a long list of war crimes, to step down, yet we are pursuing and destroying a radical organization inside his own borders because it poses a threat to our Iraq ally and incidentally, his own regime.

It is a messed-up reality all around, one that might have been prevented had the United States garnered more support from the global community to achieve a true reconciliation government in Iraq, rather than support one that gave incentive for Sunnis to rise up. Had the United States managed an active Syrian policy and worked closer with regional allies like Turkey, that country may not be in such a state as it is now. The United States also should have spent more resources and money to build up Iraq’s society and infrastructure, rather than just its military. How much better would it have been for Iraq to educate its women and young girls by supporting their right to go to school, rather than focus on training its military? It is a general trend of international development that the education of women leads to the liberalization of society. When building a democracy, it seems like a natural decision to make this a top priority. The converse of that trend is also true, and ISIS is playing on exactly that by systematically taking girls out of school and keeping them home.

American policymakers are now trying to salvage the situation as best as they can, without putting troops on the ground. This strategy includes air strikes on ISIS bases—a good start, especially for those who are fighting ISIS on the ground, like the Kurdish people in Iraq and Syria. Tackling the root of the problem, however, would require building a true representative government in Iraq, using whatever leverage and negotiating points we have at our disposal. The current PM, Haider al-Abadi, a Shia, could craft a legacy of openness and inclusion with all of Iraq’s groups, if given the right incentives from the U.S. in the form of economic and infrastructure development. Private sector partnerships with government aid can be made in the oil industry, with conditions that portions of the revenue go toward building schools, roads, and bridges. Once economic development comes for all of Iraq’s people, Sunnis will have less of an incentive to join radical groups. Once Iraq’s women stay in school and join the workforce, Iraqi society can change for the better from within. And once all of Iraq’s groups are respected, from Sunnis to Yazidis to Christians, ISIS and every other demon like it will lose its appeal to the masses. ISIS rose from a group of people who were essentially discontented with their government; the best solution is to reinvent that government so that everyone can at least be satisfied with it. That’s what a democracy is supposed to be about.

Cover image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.