Notwithstanding the fact that the war on terror was officially launched by the White House a little more than a decade ago the main trends in the American foreign policy regarding Middle East have changed significantly in these dozen-something years a couple of times. The issue the United States of America are dealing with in case of ISIS is something very different – both in nature and in scale. Compared to the zeal of the Bush administration to fight every single suspected organization and individual in retaliation for the 9/11 assault, Obama administration was (and is) far more reserved about American warfare in the Middle East and even presence in the region. After a decade of active involvement and establishment of democratic regimes (the result of which is questionable, especially what touches upon Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is quite another issue) the Obama administration has decided to shift the division of power and responsibility in the region and to leave Iraqi and Afghani governments alone with their own challenges. Leaving only a very limited amount of troops in each of those countries, the USA planned to withdraw almost all the forces from the Middle East in 2013-2014. However, a new challenge emerged that seems to have influenced America’s plans to a large extent (if not completely). This new threat is ISIS. Therefore, the topic of this paper is what ISIS is in comparison to other similar (or not very much similar) threats the United States have experienced in the region in the past decade and how does this threat define the nature of the America’s war on terror as compared to the previous period of this war.
Given the abovementioned topic it deems reasonable to look into the roots of the ISIS history in order to incrementally approach the answer to the question how is this threat different from the others in the region, like Taliban or al-Qaeda.
The first thing to know about ISIS is that it originated as an organization not very much like the one we know these days. It emerged in early 2000s as a terrorist group known as Jam’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad headed by the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This group is considered to have its roots in the Iraqi war and is thought to have resistance to the Western occupiers as the primary principle and goal of operation. This is namely were we find the first difference between other terroristic groups and ISIS as well as the difference between threats represented by both – while al-Qaeda, Taliban and other organizations, having been created earlier, tried to instill into the population of territories controlled by them values that diverged very much from the Western ones and while they fought the West in more ideological than literal sense, ISIS is quite another pair of shoes. ISIS has begun as an organization whose goal is not only (and, maybe, not as much) to deny aggressively Western values, but also to ouster the Western forces from Middle East. And that the difference – clash in the worldview in the first case and fighting for dominance over certain territory having got rid of all infidels in the region – in the second.
Another huge difference is that al-Qaeda, Taliban and other terroristic organizations are not states (at least, currently – that’s because Taliban had a chance to rule Pakistan between 1996 and 2001). To the contrary, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is trying to be something more than an organization having the word “state” only in its name – it is really trying to be a state, with its own legislature, allegedly emanating from Islam, its own armed forces and its own ideology. This changes the pattern of the US involvement completely, because the United States of America have never before fought in the Middle East for making a country disappear. It has just fought for the regime change and similar objectives in order to make states platforms for new political orders – but never trying to make some countries disappear from the world map.
Finally, the last thing to consider is the ambivalent nature of what ISIS is trying to make of itself before the world community. While ISIS propagates religious values identifying itself with Islam, it does not seem like it is trying to adhere to its prescriptions even remotely.
Analyzing peculiarities that touch upon America’s war on ISIS it is very useful to draw a comparison between the challenges represented by ISIS and other challenges present in the region. What I am implying here is that for the last several decades (starting with the Gulf War of 1990-1991) the Middle East has always been an arena of active warfare, involving different actors in different periods and protracting with different intensity but always touching upon American interests. Now, a very interesting thing here is the fact that notwithstanding such serious threats as Syrian conflict and – to the very recent time – Iran problem – the United States have planned to withdraw from the region in 2014, but now it is far more likely to stay, which is a very significant indicator as to the importance of the case to the United States security.
Another very significant thing to emphasize when speaking about how the United States tackle namely this new threat is that countermeasures targeted at ISIS are planned to be carried out in cooperation with broad coalition in comparison to how it happened in the case of, say, Iraq. In August 2014 the United States of America has summoned a coalition of partner-states to fight ISIS. The coalition’s help consisted primarily in supplying aviation machinery, military aid accorded to the army of Iraq, sending military advisors as well as establishment of bases for training of endemic army. In addition to the military aid many states have accorded humanitarian aid targeted primarily at ethnic minorities of Northern Iraq (Kurdistan and others), that were under the threat of total annihilation and therefore had to escape.
In August 2014 President Barack Obama, speaking about supporting the government of Iraq said that this (meaning the support) will be a long term project. The military aid accorded to Iraq was in the aftermath increased with a view to protecting infrastructure of Iraq and providing air cover of Iraqi troops. With the aviation support of the United States Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces managed to take over the control over the Mosul dam. It was on September 10th 2014 that Barack Obama stated that the USA would start conducting airstrikes on Syria even without their being endorsed by the Congress.
Therefore it deems logical to try to answer another question – how can the problem of ISIS be solved? The answer to this question can be found to a great extent in the words of the Barack Obama address of 10 September 2014. Among other things the President promised to organize a campaign of airstrikes against terrorists. Another vital turning point Barack Obama highlighted in his address was the importance of working together with the Iraqi government: “We will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.” Addressing the very terrorists of ISIS in his speech the President promised to hunt them down in any place, not just in Iraq, but also in Syria and other states for the threat they constitute to the national security of his country: “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”
Another thing the President dwelled on was the support he would accord to those fighting terrorists on the ground. He mentioned that he even had deployed several hundred
American soldiers to assess the scope and nature of aid needed. As the result of that assessment 475 additional servicemen were sent to Iraq. The very fact that Obama stepped aside from his own concept not to get America involved in conflicts in the Middle East through direct deployment of personnel after withdrawal from Iraq speaks in favor of the fact that the US see ISIS as an exceptional rival that has to be tackled in a manner and scope like no other before. And though this personnel was officially never planned to take part in warfare, they were assigned an exceptionally important duty – preparing Iraqi army in the fields of general training, intelligence and equipment.
Is the Obama strategy going to be effective? We will have a chance to learn that later. The Americans have experience in this type of operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. Also, under the command of Barack Obama the US Air Force drones – quite a new means of the warfare - have become a formidable force. Now a lot depends on whether Americans will have specific information "on the ground" from its allies at their disposal. It is important that anti-terrorist operations take place not only on the territory of Iraq but also in Syria.
Al Qaeda, which attacked the United States, was an organization linked to Osama bin Laden, a man that had good contacts with the Afghani Taliban. Bin Laden had big plans for disseminating his power further in the world, but they lacked structure. Al-Qaeda suffered - and continues to do so - fragmentation and poor communication. Islamic Caliphate also has ambitions to subjugate half of the globe, but it features consolidation, power and reclusiveness. We still have very little information about what is going on within the Islamic state. Jihadists from Syria and Iraq play on the West weaknesses and short-sightedness more successfully than any other terroristic organization. That is why I think that in the "terrorist circles", if I may call it so, ISIS is certainly more influential than any other terroristic organization, even al-Qaeda.
All of the above having been said, I think the following conclusions may be made:
The war on terror initiated by the United States of America in the wake of the 9/11 assault is something that at some point has stopped being preventive or punishing and started being provoking instead. The very emergence of the ISIS speaks in favor of the fact that organizations like it emerge not as a prerequisite of the US invasion but as a consequence thereof as endemic extremists try to organize movements of resistance evolving later in terroristic cells and entire organizations. This is namely the peculiarity that must be kept in mind when trying to find out how the threat of ISIS has to be tackled.
The very nature of ISIS is very different from the one characteristic of other terroristic organizations – it is not disseminated all over the Middle East like al-Qaeda and has ambitions to become a real state which makes it very different for the world community to tackle.
Fighting ISIS is also unlike any other operation of the War on Terror. First of all, it involves international coalitions the United States is trying to summon. In comparison with Afghanistan when international coalition was not created at the US initiative and not much to its own interest, the situation with ISIS points out to the fact that the threat of the latter is not only different but is potentially far more dangerous.
Notwithstanding the fact that the United States have vested interests in tackling ISIS because of its (meaning US) geopolitical interest in the region, the United States do not intend to increase their presence in the region that significantly, at least to the extent it was during the Iraq or Afghan campaign. In this sense, Barack Obama adheres to his general presidential line concerning Middle East – for now.
All in all, developments of the War on Terror that have been lasting for more than a decade have led to a number of side effects not initially intended by the very campaign. Now, when the Pandora box is obviously open, it is vital not only for securing the US interests, but for keeping peace in the entire region to find a way to put an end to the project of ISIS with combined forces of all countries – even those, that were in confrontation not so long ago.
References
“Statement by the President on ISIL.” (September 10, 2014) The White House. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1
Walker, Hunter. (September 10, 2014). “Obama Vows Fight Against ISIS Will Be ‘Different’ From War On Terror.” Business Insider. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-isis-fight-is-different-from-war-on-terror-2014-9
Cockburn, Patrick. (February 25, 2015). “ISIS Is Proof of the Failed “War on Terror.” In Common Dreams. Retrieved from: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/02/25/isis-proof-failed-war-terror
Hussain, Dilly. (March 23, 2015). “ISIS: The “Unintended Consequences” of the US-led War on Iraq.” In Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/
