Abstract
This paper explores the consequences of America’s premature withdrawal of forces from Iraq. The absence of a stabile Iraqi government allowed a foothold for a resurgent enemy more dangerous than its predecessors; accordingly, it is America’s duty to fulfill its commitment in Iraq by ending the barbaric practices of the Islamic State. This stability void created an uncontested region for terror masterminds to plan global atrocities. From their proclaimed caliphate, ISIS has launched numerous attacks on civilians living in several western nations. Recent attacks were identified, and inferences were made about possible Islamic State motives. The American political response has been a perilously underestimated assessment of this very serious and global menace. Other world leaders have also been hesitant to respond. This has left poorly organized militant factions living inside Iraq and Syria to fend for themselves. This paper examines the capabilities of the Islamic State, future desired activities, and argues that political decision makers in America are poorly misguided on the issue. Finally, it suggests that additional United States involvement may be necessary in order to prevent further attacks on innocent civilians.
Keywords: Islamic State, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), Sharia Law, Caliphate, radical Islamist, jihad
America’s Responsibility to Defeat ISIS
An instability was created in Iraq after America’s longstanding occupation. This vacuum of stability nurtured a struggling, new democracy free from foreign assistance. Here dangerous religious ideology was allowed to fester. The basis of this ideology revolves around a foundation of Sharia law, and a unified hatred of western culture. The Islamic State seized this opportunity, quickly establishing a religious caliphate over a vast region in Syria and Iraq. Battling a fragmented opposition, the group raped, pillaged, murdered, and conquered, while extending their caliphate from Syria to the outskirts of Baghdad before being halted by Iraqi military forces. Firm in their religious ideology, the group has advantaged its position through an ongoing Syrian civil war, and wavering Iraqi troops unable to thwart their advances. From the relative safe haven inside their seized borders, the group has been able to advance the practice of jihad upon western nations as evidenced by recent, high-profile attacks in Paris and Belgium. Left unopposed, the group is likely to conquer much of the region, instilling their Islamic radicalism upon the inhabitants. The absence of a stabile Iraqi government set the conditions for a resurgent enemy more dangerous than any predecessors; accordingly, it is America’s duty to end the barbaric practices of the Islamic State.
The unintended consequences of American withdrawal from Iraq likely set the conditions for the Islamic State to establish a caliphate. The Wire defines a caliphate as an area ruled by a caliph, who is considered the successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He holds absolute religious and political authority over the entire Muslim community (Chandler, 2014). History suggests that the Arab world has been troubled in finding an appropriate governmental framework since the collapse of the last Islamic caliphate in 1924 (Hamid, 2014). Central to the foundation of any caliphate is Sharia law, particularly the principles of hudud punishment. According to the principles of hudud mandated by the holy Quran, a thief’s punishment is to have his hands removed (Quran 5:38), and an adulterer or rapist to be flogged with 100 stripes (Quran 24:2). A caliph enforces Sharia law and the principals of the Quran as the governing authority in an Islamic caliphate. Therefore, it is impossible to separate a religious ideology from a political one. The Atlantic proposes that most mainstream Islamist movements disagree with these principles; however, modern extremists have embraced the teachings of Muhammad and Sharia Law strictly enforcing adherence (Hamid, 2014). This is further evidenced by atrocities committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State, and the actions of lesser organized radical Islamists.
Besides a moral obligation to end the absolute barbarism and basic human rights violations committed by the Islamic State, American involvement is essential to stem further jihadist activity against western targets. In a recent announcement from an ISIS spokesman, the New York Times asserts the group claimed responsibility for the attacks in Brussels, and threatened future attacks. “We are promising the Crusader nations which have aligned themselves against the Islamic State that dark days are coming”. Furthermore, the authors claim that since January, 2015, the Islamic State has been responsible for more than 1,000 civilian deaths outside the regional border of their caliphate (Giratikanon, Watkins, and Yourish, 2016). In addition to a desired cause, the Islamic State has acquired the resources to carry out widespread attacks against the west. As part of their expansion efforts, the Islamic State targeted oil fields in Syria and northern Iraq to fund its military campaign. Recent reports indicate that the Islamic State has made more than $500 million selling stolen oil and have looted an estimated $1 Billion from banks in Syria and Iraq (Islamic State oil is going to Assad, some to Turkey, US official says, 2015).
Not only has the Islamic State inherited a seemingly endless cash flow, the group has taken advantage of failed states and their military arsenals. Intelligence analysts assess the group has acquired surface to air missiles capable of shooting down civilian and military airliners. Perhaps thousands of surface-to-air munitions remain undocumented, remnants of Qaddafi’s 20,000+ surface-to-air munition inventory acquired during his rule of Libya (Broder, 2016). Moreover, the Islamic State has acquired a nearly endless influx of small arms, armored vehicles, heavy machine guns, mortars, and artillery; benefitting from the constant state of regional conflict since 2003. They have even acquired U.S. made tanks and Humvees from defeated Iraqi government forces (Kaplan, 2015).
Opponents may argue that the threat from Islamic State is regional. However, the attacks in Paris and Brussels prove an extended capability. Attacks inspired by the Islamic State have already reached America. Islamic State took credit for the San Bernardino attack as well as the Kentucky recruiting station attacks. Furthermore, experts indicate that Islamic State may be actively seeking weapons of mass destruction. CQ Press proposes that ISIS seeks a nuclear or biological device capable of large scale destruction, but any form of chemical or biological weapon fits within their ambitions of fear and control (p. 564). An active Iranian nuclear program can only further degrade regional stability and increase the possibility of that reality.
In addition to the global threat of the Islamic State, Iraq’s national forces and Syrian rebel fighters have proved they are incapable of unilateral victory against ISIS. Western allies have been disjointed in their acknowledgement of the serious threat faced in ISIS. Journalism has only aided their misconception. In fact, according to Daragahi (2015), “Respected writers argue that the same impulse that gave rise to Muslim anger over depictions of the Prophet Mohammed gave rise to ISIS” (p. 18). Even world leaders have grossly underestimated the threat including U.S. President Barack Obama, who likened ISIS to a junior varsity basketball team (Sinha, 2015). This has only emboldened the Islamic State to sweep large areas of Syria and Iraq unabated. With nearly a complete absence of foreign and domestic aid, volunteer Iraqi’s have been soldiering the frontline with outdated weapons and equipment. This has forced some to acquire personal firearms with earnings from frequently unpaid salaries (Daragahi, 2015). Largely unchallenged, ISIS proved to be a capable and skilled fighting force able to take and hold far-reaching territories. Without extensive foreign aid, their goal to establishing a legitimate caliphate is nearly certain.
Direct U.S. intervention may be the only course of action to stop the growth of the Islamic State; however, serious risk assessment needs to be paramount in any decision. Already one impromptu decision to arm Syrian rebels resulted in embarrassment. The Los Angeles Times reported that CIA-armed militias engaged Pentagon-armed fighters in direct combat. Separate entities within the United State’s government provided training, and equipped opposing militant forces. Fighting in Aleppo, Syria, the conflicting militias have “repeatedly shot at each other as they have maneuvered through contested territory” (Bennett, Bulos, Hennigan, 2016). This incident undermines any strategic gains, and can only obstruct efforts toward regional stabilization. Furthermore, it suggests the United States has little authoritarian influence over their supported militant groups. Subsequent arming of militias could prove even more consequential should the United States commit additional ground forces in the region. America runs the risk of losing world credibility, and potentially endanger the lives of servicemen by outfitting uncontrolled militias.