ISIS goes by many names. It claims a caliphate in swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. Whatever you call it, it presents a huge problem. In my research paper, I will discuss the issue of how the United States government should respond to ISIS. I would like to explore in detail the type of political and military actions that the US government can make against ISIS to eliminate it as a threat, as well as to make sure it does not return in some other form. I will limit this exigence by only exploring military and political actions by the United States, not by any other Western countries or any other group. It will also only be a secular argument involving politics and military, not involving religious action against ISIS.
Even though the US has been fighting (debatable) ISIS through airstrikes for some time, there are still questions amongst the public on how to truly defeat this enemy, or if we even should fight in the first place. A controversy in the public remains over the failure of the United States to restructure Iraq. In his Wall Street Journal article, Aaron Miller says President Obama is searching for a middle ground, between sending in troops and restructuring like Bush after 9/11 and doing nothing. Mr. Miller also argues that “ISIS is largely an outgrowth of no governance or bad governance.” In a New York Times editorial, the NY Times Editorial Board argues that Muslim countries have to team up to fight ISIS. They write, “[S]uch extremists will never be defeated if Muslims themselves don’t make it a priority” So, all these arguments from both these newspapers point to the debates over how Obama should handle ISIS in light of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, whether the weak governance in Iraq was a cause for ISIS, and how other countries, specifically Muslim countries, should play a role in the US fight against ISIS. What is at stake in all these debates is the sovereignty and autonomy of certain Muslim countries, since the argument could be made the lack of authority in Iraq and Syria allowed for this problem; a possible change in US foreign policy and how the US is viewed on the world stage; and the relationships between the US and other Muslim countries if we ask them to have a zero tolerance against any extremist actions in their country.
There is more at stake in this overall issue too, beyond just those few debates. Because after concluding those debates and discussing the whole issue of the rhetorical situation, an answer from the United States will affect different groups regardless. It’s hard to say who would benefit from the answer to this issue by the US government. But, the fact that this conversation is happening means that it is more likely for action to be taken, therefore benefiting the victims of ISIS whose safety requires intervention of some sort. It’s difficult to describe who does not benefit from this exigence. ISIS would not benefit over a discussion about how to destroy them, they would be affected negatively. Countries without a hand in this game of geopolitical poker would also not be affected, countries who do not struggle with Islamist extremism and are not involved in the Middle East. The list of those countries would be short. Those who have potential to be persuaded over this issue are American federal government officials in the Executive and Legislative branch about what policies and laws to enact to fix the issue. American citizens can also be persuaded over which policy to support as a citizen and which politicians to support based on their official policy over ISIS. Lastly, there is a large group left out of persuasion in this discussion. The Middle East itself and any country to possibly join a coalition against ISIS are not being persuaded, as relevant as they might be. This is only about what the US should do with and in these countries, not about what each country should do individually.
Works Cited
The Editorial Board. "A Necessary Response to ISIS." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.
Miller, Aaron. "Obama’s Search for an ISIS Strategy Neither Too Hot Nor Too Cold." WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
Brandon, your paper should be very interesting to read! As you know from our various discussions on this topic, I'm not likely to agree with your end, but I am positive that it will be well thought out and well written. However, when you are discussing your exigence for this paper, I think it would be inappropriate to only include ISIS's existence in your exigence, for that leaves out a large part of the story of ISIS. I believe that you should include the conditions that led to the formation and initial successes of extremist groups like ISIS and others. This will undoubtedly mean that your paper will need to look at more than just the situation at hand, but situations for years that have led to the current situation in the Middle East. You should go beyond just the fact that the US has failed spectacularly to achieve its own goals in the last two wars, but how the state of perpetual war in the Middle East actually continues the cycle of radicalization. As awful as ISIS is, an solution must be long-term so that not only does ISIS lose its power, but we can be assured that in 5 years we won't have an ISIS 2.0.
ReplyDeleteBrandon, for the most part, I think you have reduced the scope of your topic down to something both manageable and arguable within 6-ish pages, but a lot of your reduction of scope relies on that you are only focusing on what the US can do to limit the advancement of the Islamic State's sphere of influence. However, when you begin to write, it seems as though you make an obvious shift into global diplomacy, saying essentially that we can only do it with everyone's help in a "zero tolerance policy." By saying this, I feel as though you;ve already left your range of argument and moved into a global issue, rather than a solely American issue. Instead, I think you have to focus on structuring everything relating to foreign nations taking a part in this self-governing on Islam from the inside out to specifically exactly the means of the United States in getting that to happen. Its a little hard to follow your argument, especially without a clear thesis already made (I know we don't have to be super clear at this stage, but it's interesting to see how the paper will actually flow because the argument is much more about what we ought to do or can do rather than specifically one method of defeating ISIS through a clear, concise means. I don't know if others would hold the same opinion, but I think it's gonna be hard to be clear with what you arguing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think your concluding line makes any sense because the United States' control and influence over the region or specific nations implies a mutual trust of both out military and government and their people. 1) They don't trust us because of what we've done. And 2) Reforming Islam from the perspective and reach of the US is meaningless. There is no centralized authority in Islam, so it would take individual countries becoming more westernized or at least becoming more pro-West if we want them to support us. That's not something we can do, because it must come from them. The main thing the US can do is provide military support, while Muslim nations, individually, must choose to de-radicalize the populace by becoming more secular in some areas.
Brandon, I would really try to reduce the range of what this topic would need to include because I could write a whole book on it given the complexity of the situation. If you are to continue with this, you should really consider the following. While it would require a few pages on what the US should do, I would reserve a decent amount of space to explain the history. I would also ask myself the following questions. What has the US done to contribute to the growth of ISIS and what has it done to stop it? (No one is going to want to support the US if they created this mess) Have the US’s Sunni allies facilitated its growth in order to weaken Shia influence in the Iraqi government? (Did the US really create a multi-sided holy war just to try to weaken Iranian influence in its own bordering countries?) Also, I would make sure to include every considerable alternative to just remaining in silence or all out war, such as the Green Party’s stance on creating an arm’s embargo to stop these violent sectarian wars which are further fueled by Western arms and investment. In addition, make sure to diversify in research. On Al Jazeera Opinions, they have excellent contributions from both Shia (mostly Iranian), Sunni (from various nations with varied opinions), as well as Western writers, all with credible backgrounds. Also, don’t group Middle Eastern countries or Muslims under one umbrella. You would have to make it totally hypothetical because Shia are very different in stance from the Wahabis and Salafis or the Al-Azhar School, hence the origin of instability. The influence of regional Sunni imams would have to be considered because the Sunni branch of Islam is much less centralized as it doesn’t follow an Imamah based leadership. What you propose writing about would ignore the complex reality the Middle East lives in. This is a very complicated topic with the Syrian Civil War alone having 40+ parties that I could think of at the moment, in addition to considering which countries support which groups involved, so read as much as possible. All the information is accessible; the problem is discerning who is right and how you can make this concise.
ReplyDelete