In June 2014, a radical islamist group known as the Islamic State proclaimed a worldwide caliphate, claiming religious, political and military authority over all Muslim’s worldwide. The Islamic State is a ultra-conservative reform movement (Salafi) jihadist militant group that follows an Islamic fundamentalist doctrine of Sunni Islam. They gained fame when their militias advanced into Iraq from Syria and began to take over parts of Iraq’s Anbar Province in western Iraq, including the prominent takeover of Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. Now commonly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL), this group has since continued to cause unrest on a worldwide scale by not only committing atrocities against civilians locally, but also claiming responsibility for many deadly sporadic attacks around the world. These attacks include shootings in Brussels, Denmark, Tunisia, Tripoli and Algeria as well as numerous bombings in Ankara, Paris, Brussels, and Egypt. The total death toll from attacks claimed by ISIS targeting westerners around the world is upwards of 2,000 people. This number, however, does not include the deaths caused by ISIS locally in Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State was born out of the branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that entered the security vacuum following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and was originally known as “al-Qaeda in Iraq”. AQI waged a terrorist-guerrilla warfare against the American and coalition forces in Iraq at the time and against the Shi’ite population. AQI eventually established itself to be known as the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). When the American army withdrew from Iraq in 2011, ISI became much stronger. The outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 led to ISI establishing a branch in Syria known as the Al-Nusra Front. Soon, disagreements occurred between ISI and their Syrian branch; this led to a split between ISI and Al-Qaeda and the establishment of ISIS. In February 2014, Al- Qaeda claimed ISIS was too radical and disavowed all relations with the group. Since its breakaway from Al-Qaeda, ISIS has proclaimed itself a worldwide caliphate and has recruited more than 30,000 foreign fighters. This conflict has progressed from a localized issue to an international crisis. While ISIS has global aspirations, the Taliban in Afghanistan is comparable on a national level. The Taliban is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan that held control of the country from 1996-2001. While in power, they successfully enforced strict Sharia Law. Much like the Taliban, ISIS’s “caliphate” aims to enforce strict Sharia Law in Iraq and the Levant. Both groups also fail to recognize democracy or a permanent government. Similar to ISIS, the Taliban overwhelmed government security forces and overtook key cities. In 2001, the United States, Northern Alliance, and several other countries began an offensive to take back provinces and cities under Taliban control, train government security forces, and successfully established a central government out of the capital city of Kabul. Afghanistan is still battling several extremist groups throughout the country, but the Afghan government has been willing and open to negotiate; especially with some of the grassroots efforts within society. This includes a “Civic Platform for National Interest and Human Security” that was established in Afghanistan and is composed of a mixture of religious and tribal leaders, women and youth groups, teachers, doctors and others who describe themselves as “concerned about the public interest.” As previously demonstrated in Afghanistan, with some minor changes in lasting peace keeping efforts, a quasi solution can be reached pertaining to the ISIS conflict. The main players that are involved in my proposed solution are the United States and the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and the members of the GCC.
Recommendation:
The ISIS conflict resolution can be achieved if multiple parties remain consistent in their support, as the road to peace will be lengthy and complicated. I suggest a four part plan to ensure long lasting peace in the region, starting with the implementation of NATO forces in the area, then a border treaty where the Iraqi government surrenders territory to the Islamic State. After the Islamic State is recognized as a sovereign state, I suggest that some of the middle eastern countries form a mutually beneficial coalition for peace in the area. Finally, there is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that takes place in order to bring peace of mind and closure to those that were directly affected by the ISIS conflict. The multi-faceted plan for peace in Iraq starts with sending permanent NATO forces to establish and enforce a ceasefire between ISIS and the Iraqi forces. Since ISIS already controls most of the Sunni dominated Anbar province in Iraq, I suggest that the Iraqi government surrenders that territory to ISIS and they have an autonomous region that they can self-govern. Their new state would have permanent UN peacekeeper personnel in place to prevent human rights violations, as well as work with Human Rights Watch to protect and ensure a safe environment for the new citizens of the Islamic State. The third step to my peace plan would be working with the governments of the surrounding middle eastern countries and the GCC in order to set up a “Middle Eastern Coalition for Stability in the Region” which would promote free trade between states and lay the framework for building regional alliances. This coalition would have an equal representation style of governance and a court system to ensure that war criminals receive justice and would be structured very much like the current United Nations. Once the coalition is in place, I suggest that the United States government works with them to form a neutral platform to hold a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This commission will be held in Mosul, and it will be constructed similarly to the TRC that took place in South Africa under apartheid. The Iraqi TRC will effect its mandate through three committees; the Human Rights Violations committee, the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee, and the Amnesty Committee. The duties of these committees will be investigating and tracking down human rights violations victims, providing victim support and ensuring amnesty for perpetrators of crimes, respectively. Once this plan has been implemented fully in the middle east, I believe that the possibility of a well structured road to long lasting peace is attainable.
Major obstacles/Implementation Challenges:
Although this plan has the potential to bring lasting peace to one of the messiest political areas of the world today, there are some arguments that can be made against it. Opponents of this plan might argue that the religious rifts run far too deep for any of the middle eastern countries to participate in the coalition or that ISIS simply won’t comply. Upon examining the plan, however, one can see how mutually beneficial these policies could be once placed in action. The governments of the surrounding middle eastern countries can clearly understand how essential it would be to establish peace and economic security in the area, regardless of conflicting views regarding religion and politics. To put it simply, the benefits outweigh the costs. Furthermore, the main goal of ISIS has always been to establish a caliphate within Iraq. This plan allows for them to achieve this goal, as well as discontinue the endless fighting and destruction that has been wrecking the middle east and Iraq’s economy. Although one could foresee these obstacles, they are overcome-able.
Summary:
My four-pronged model for long term peaceful relations in the middle east has the opportunity to be incredibly successful if implemented promptly and with determination. Securing NATO troops in the region to create, balance and maintain a ceasefire, establishing an autonomous region for the Islamic State to govern with help from UN peacekeepers, form a coalition for economic and political stability in the region, and finally set up a TRC in Iraq has the potential to result in enduring harmony. Reducing the amount of armed forces would be counterintuitive to sending in NATO troops, so that method of conflict resolution would not work in this circumstance. Another example that would not work in the middle east would be any type of ethnic cleansing, especially since there are so many existing ethnicities and tribes. Systematic forced removal of any religious or ethnic groups in Iraq would further the rift between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam, increasing the amount of tension and conflict. Simply put, the best way to approach the ISIS situation in Iraq would be to enact my peace policies consistently and promptly.