Stemming the Spread of the Islamic State

After an extended period of chaos within Iraq wrought by the organization known as ISIL, U.S. President Barack Obama has finally given the order for military intervention. On Aug. 8, the U.S. Air Force launched air strikes against ISIL artillery emplacements and other military targets within the Kurdish semi-autonomous region. Their first objective was to protect approximately 40,000 members of the Yazidi minority, who have fled to the mountains in the north to escape the conflict and are in desperate need of supplies, preventing their slaughter at the hands of ISIL forces and providing them with much-needed food and drinking water. The second objective of the strikes was to lift the siege on the northern Iraqi city of Erbil, where there exists a U.S. consulate and the oil installations of several Western companies.

However, Obama also stated that military measures alone cannot resolve the crisis and that to move forward a political solution is required, something that will require prolonged effort to attain. The air strikes of Aug. 8 were the first resumption of military operations in Iraq for the U.S. military in the nearly three years following its withdrawal from the country. The Iraqi army’s chief of staff stated that air strikes from U.S. warplanes would lead to “huge changes on the ground,” indicating the necessity of the U.S. playing a leadership role in the crisis. However, such a grave situation existing at all in Iraq can also be laid at the feet of the U.S. having underestimated the enormity of the burden that occupying and rebuilding Iraq would entail after the U.S.-led coalition forces removed Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, lost the confidence of the people, and gave rise to sectarian conflict, presenting extremist movements such as the Islamic State with a ripe opportunity to exploit.

The United Nations has also moved to take action outside of military means, and is drafting a resolution to weaken the finances of ISIL and prevent fighters from other countries going to Iraq to take part in the conflict, as well as employing sanctions against individuals and groups that aid the terrorist organization. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon further appealed to all factions in Iraq to form a unified government capable of responding to the threat from extremists. ISIL is primarily concentrated in northern Iraq and comprises a minority of the country’s Sunnis who grew discontent after their political dominance of the Saddam era was supplanted by the Shiites with the onset of the U.S. occupation. Prime Minister Maliki, a Shiite, rejected sharing national authority and the profits from the country’s petroleum resources with the Sunnis, Kurds in the north, and other factions, casting the future of the country into doubt.

The threat from ISIL is not only that of its rejection of Iraqi sovereignty, but further encompasses a desire to establish a pan-Islamic theocracy, spanning the territories of multiple Middle Eastern countries. The organization has even proclaimed its support for the separatist movement in Xinjiang, China. In the process of expanding its territory, ISIL has adopted a brutal and violent rule over those within its domain, and has eliminated cultural traditions that had been in place for centuries. The Christian communities of northern Iraq have nearly been wiped out; the Yazidi minority that mixes Islamic beliefs with local practices has also become a target, and although the Kurds, who possess their own forces, have been able to defend themselves for the time being, their differences with the central government in Baghdad suggest that the post-ISIL Iraq will never again be as it once was.

By leveraging a host of destabilizing factors, such as the general disgruntlement of the Islamic world with the modern secular culture of the West, Islamic society’s relative lack of innovation and good governance, corrupt regimes, the growing income disparity between rich and poor, and the disillusionment of a largely unemployed youth population, ISIL, just as with the wave of communist sentiment in the early 20th century, has infused the idea of a revolution that will overthrow the masters of the old order with an almost romantic attraction. The major difference with the future envisioned by communist thought is that Islamic extremism yearns for a return to the ideal historical state that exists within its mind’s eye. Shared in common, however, is a thick streak of anti-intellectualism and a spurning of modern scientific rationality. To this point, the threat that such extremism poses is a global one.

The Indonesian government has already banned support for ISIL, citing the organization’s lack of respect for national sovereignty. For a country whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, Jakarta’s decision undoubtedly required a good dose of political courage. ISIL has gradually settled itself into al-Qaida’s old political position within the Muslim world, luring Muslims from all over the globe to join the fight; they then spread like cancer cells as they return to their countries of origin. This not only affects Muslim areas; Western nations such as the United States, Australia and countries in Europe are similarly vulnerable. Consequently, the beginning of U.S. military action to halt the momentum of ISIL was, in truth, a necessary step to take. Of course, military action can only address the symptoms of this disease, while political reform must be the cure. However, whether or not a U.S. populace that has long since tired of foreign intervention will agree to Washington making up for mistakes made during its previous slipshod invasion of Iraq is anything but certain.