USA and ISIS: What Next?
902935 372785

USA and ISIS: What Next?

As the U.S counter-strikes garners greater momentum, ISIS has begun training its militants to fly war planes, considered a major leap forward in combating the U.S forces. The London based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported ISIS to be in possession of three warplanes in Northern Syria. More than over a month since Obama went vocal with his aim to "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS", the ground situations has worsened, with every passing day drudging even deeper into oblivion.

At the base of it, the problem lies not in the failure of the military or the war-machinery of the countries fighting against the ISIS, US being the rabble rouser, the hindrance is manifested at the strategic level. With Obama declaring US to be the "indispensable partner" of all countries to look up to at the time of any crisis, he failed however recount the strategic logic that made 9/11 an extraordinarily gruesome attack at the global level.

Al Qaida's motivation behind 9/11 was not a seething reply to America's economy, rather intended toward building up counter-hegemony mechanisms, concrete and permanent, to counter the American's way of "manufacturing consent" in several of those Muslim countries. And most rightly so, Al Qaeda succeeded in its attempt as America failed to escape from the well scripted trap. The mass strike against the American forces, brought to existence with the "demonization of Islam" and the U.S policy of the "Global War on Terror", accorded Al Qaeda the covert force and legitimacy to set strong its base in several Muslim majority regions, bringing to halt the America's military strategies.

Similar has been US's response now to the momentous rise of ISIS. While committing to disembowel the militant group in Syria and Iraq, US has been seeping deep into the fallacies of its own hypocrisy. With the initial proclaimed motive of safeguarding the American personnel in Iraq, the U.S has now reckoned for a proficient strike against the ISIS, with all its force. The US has moved leaps and bounds in countering the militant group, while in real turning deaf ears to the relentless calls for greater diplomatic strategies to build up greater alliances with the neighboring states of Iran and Egypt.

Since the cold war, the pursuit of dismantling the "authoritarian regimes" by external coups and counter-insurgency movements have been consistent in the foreign policy of the U.S. The end-result brought no respite, instead raved up vestiges of destruction building on the strategy of establishing peace, while sustaining underneath forces for global instability. While leaving no moral ground for such intervention, the US only incentivizes the Jihadis grand strategy-making "crusaders" for the cause of the holy war.

More than Islam and its interpretation, the U.S air strikes now ensures extraordinary growth and built grounds for sustenance of the ISIS militant-equipping them with a galore of Jihadis, who lead their struggle from the forefront. The global threat emerges not vitally from the strength of the militant forces, but from the uncertain and ambiguous policies of America.

This, in the best way, promotes the creation and sustenance of extremist threats in the failed states, Syria, or weak state, Iraq, Yemen, or Libya or those in the Sub-Saharan Africa which seem to behold the reproduction ground of a vital number of Jihadis across the world. Further, they do not just perpetuate eternal violence and disturbance in areas all around but also possess a threat proliferating and undeterred, the threat of persuasion and invasion of one's personal morality and ability to reason. Above, 3000 Europeans are now suggested of being recruited by the ISIS, it generates not just a global concern for safety and security but also invokes a sense of fear, fear of being persuaded-consciously or not.

With the attack on Canada, suspected to be a Jihadist, the fact pronounces itself even clearer that the solution lies not in perpetual disorientation rather in dismantling and dislodging the underground forces.

Need arrives of mechanizing an on-ground and diplomatically driven regional strategy which gives no lip service to the White House who caters to the fundraisers-contributing significantly to the sustenance of the ISIS. To engage with the ground forces, consecrated efforts where Russia, Syria and Iran remain partners to the peace making project stand quintessential. A multi-pronged approach can only bring back the safe haven of Syria, Iraq and the entire of Middle East back to the clasp of the civilians, but not the approach of dismantling and destroying the ISIS through abrupt air strikes. The continuance strike is a testimony to the outset failure of Obama's strategy to contain the militants, hence relegates the situation further into one of greater devastation, proliferating human loss. In such a scenario, damning nations of strategic importance, e.g Russia, Ira, turns fatal for the ambition of the U.S and anticipates future decadence and ultimately slaughters America's hegemonic power. Need to formulate a space for dialogue with these partners and formulate a policy for handling the ground situations in an effective way, can be the only way forward.

Baisali Mohanty

Copyright © 2015 • UN Post • All Rights Reserved

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments