Our revulsion at the Paris attacks and subsequent ISIS violence was palpable, and our reaction almost universal. We want action.
But are we prepared to accept the difficult truth? The only answer to brute force by evil and depraved fanatics is brute force by the good guys – working with some of the not-so-good guys.
The French wasted no time launching counterstrikes against ISIS targets in retaliation for the brutal slaughter at multiple Paris locations. At the same time the Russians, after confirming their airliner was brought down by a terrorist bomb (ISIS took responsibility) have unleashed some heavy ordnance on ISIS-controlled territory.
There will be no shortage of payback for those terrorist outrages and the ones sadly to come, and the U.S., under increasing pressure to take leadership, will keep up or increase its own strikes.
The burning question: Will it matter?
This is not a war over territory that can be easily won by controlling airspace, ports, and resources and by depleting the other side’s troop supply. It’s a war against an ideology that almost effortlessly gains new recruits and sympathizers, not just those in bunkers in Iraq and Syria but well-educated people in Europe, the Mideast, and even in the U.S. who are willing to give their lives in a conflict we can barely understand, let alone contain.
There are those who believe we are playing right into ISIS’s hands with our response. More bombings create more civilian casualties, and more angry orphans to join Isis. Radicals are also created by the widespread suspicion of (and even hostility toward) Muslim refugees in Europe and those trying to enter the U.S. The Russians, always with an agenda of their own, stand to benefit from this too: The refugee problem boosts the fortunes of right-wing political parties in Europe more inclined to align themselves with Vladimir Putin and less concerned about his subjugation of Ukraine.
If chaos is what ISIS craves, it is meeting its objectives handily. Despite the above concerns, we have no choice but to drop bombs, and no choice but to carefully scrutinize the refugees to weed out potential terrorists, despite the notion on the left that it is un-American not to quickly open our doors.
Leaving us with so few choices, Isis is outmaneuvering us.
But there is one aspect of this no-choice conundrum that, perplexing as it may be, could lead to the eventual defeat of ISIS. Groups like ISIS are gripped by a powerful delusional vision of what some call “volcanic jihad,” which involves establishing a beachhead in the Middle East to spread radicalized Islam around the world.
That vision is alarming enough to create the unlikeliest bedfellows.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, even Hizbullah in Beirut, Sunni tribes in Iraq, and of course the Russians all have the same interest in excising this cancer, as do the U.S. and its NATO allies. Can they all join together in a workable coalition? Do we dare even work with Bashar Assad’s forces? Or is keeping him in power too bitter a bill to swallow?
It may be precisely because of the odds mounting against them that ISIS operatives have struck so many times in recent weeks. According to a New York Times analysis, nearly 1,000 deaths have been caused by ISIS outside Iraq and Syria so far in 2015. A former CIA official told the paper the group is moving beyond inspiring “lone wolf” attacks by sympathizers and now seems to have the ability to coordinate its own operatives.
It remains to be seen if ISIS can withstand the disruption of focused attacks by a coordinated coalition of enemies, which could break off communication from the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, to operatives abroad. Perhaps in the best-case scenario, such attacks would force ISIS to revert to inspiring lone wolves through brutal videotapes and fundamentalist ranting, and there will be fewer recruits if the cause of ISIS is perceived to be losing steam.
If inciting a global, apocalyptic war is a key goal of ISIS, uniting some of the most disparate powers can achieve exactly the opposite effect. To achieve this coalition, Western powers must step up efforts to convince Arab powers to take an active role rather than just cheerlead – meaning troops and logistical support, including use of airspace and bases. It should not be the job of French or American troops to clean up their neighborhood for them. A key ISIS strategy is to rely heavily on fence-sitters to be cowed into silence and inaction.
A 2004 manifesto written by the precursor group to ISIS and titled “The Management of Savagery” calls on followers to “diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy …”
Divide and conquer is a time-proven strategy, and it has made ISIS more powerful, but as the conflict grinds on it may backfire as disparate enemies have no choice but to work together.
It may be a long, sad, and often terrifying conflict, with no immediate end in sight. And the ideology behind ISIS will never be completely eliminated. But with the right amount of determination and unity, a coalition could disrupt its leadership, disperse its elements, dissuade volunteers and, most important, save thousands of innocent lives.