In The News: ISIS, Regional Instability, and U.S. War Weariness

What's Going On?

 In recent weeks, a militant group called ISIS - or the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Syria)" - has conducted a series of well-orchestrated, violent attacks on key economic and political strongholds in Iraq, and as of today has gained great control of Iraq's western border with Syria.  Many have pointed to the continuing unrest in Syria as a breeding ground for terrorist activity, and blame the chaos within Syria for ISIS's formation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27966774


Domestic response

Domestically, religious and political figures in Iraq have been quick to condemn the attacks and call upon the majority population of Shi'a Muslims in order to combat what is in essence a Sunni extremist militant group.  However, figures such as Shiite cleric Nassir al-Saedi were also adamant that the U.S. remain unengaged with the developing situation as Iraq, relegating any U.S. involvement to continued attempts to occupy and control the state.

It should be noted though, that as the situation escalates, views on U.S. involvement have become more diverse; for example, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has come out in support of air strikes on Iraq's western border, which would be carried out by foreign states.

 

Who Is ISIS?

It is easy to automatically discount a group of any kind once the word 'terrorism' comes into the fray, but regardless of their actions, it is still helpful to understand what caused this group to form in the first place.  In fact, given the pervasiveness of American ignorance regarding Islamic societies and Middle-Eastern states, I would say it is extremely important to discuss.

The 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' (ISIS) is a Sunni militant group acting within Iraq - a Shi'a majority state with a history of gross negligence toward its Sunni minority.  Regarding ISIS's activities in Syria, it is also important to remember that although the Assad regime (read: Assad family) is Alawi (a Shiite ethnic group in Syria) the wide majority of the Syrian populace is also Sunni.

They aren't acting alone either.  In much of North and West Iraq - regions which have larger populations of Sunnis and marginalized tribal groups than in the South - ISIS is getting support from those who are fed up with the Sunni-led regime and the divided status of their country.  Indeed, Iraq has been called unofficially partitioned by many, and even those who denounce the activities of ISIS are discussing the possibility of a future partition as well.

Of course, it is important to remember that they are officially categorized as a terrorist group as well.  High levels of violence against civilian populations have been attributed to the group.  Also, given the time frame during which ISIS arose - during the final call to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as during the ongoing Syrian civil war - it is clear that they are an opportunistic group as well.  Still, there are those who say otherwise, that the civilians fleeing the violence are not fleeing from ISIS itself, but from the inevitable violence between the group and government forces and that many who are fleeing are still supportive of the 'Sunni revolution'.

 

U.S. Response: The Government and The People

So what does this all mean for the United States and our inability to untangle ourselves from Iraqi politics?  The various members of the U.S. government, including President Obama and numerous key representatives, have attempted to walk a fine line, realizing that the wide majority of Americans are against any further involvement in foreign affairs as a result of not only war fatigue but an increasing disillusionment with the state of their own country.

Members of the U.S. government announced several times that 'all options' were on the table as far as aiding the Iraqi government in dealing with ISIS, and last week sent up to 300 military advisers to Iraq in order to provide support.

The question that arises here is one of state sovereignty.  At what point does domestic conflict - especially one that lay outside of one's region - become an international concern.  Given the weariness that many worldwide have about U.S. military involvement, is it little surprise that the call to arms of the Shi'a majority in Iraq was followed promptly by a warning to the U.S.?

Or, given the globalization of economics and politics, is something like this intrinsically connected to the U.S. and indeed to international security due to ISIS's threat to regional political stability and - it must be noted - to key markets in the global oil trade?  There are no easy answers to these questions, and in my opinion it really does come down to weighing the costs and benefits of not only U.S. or greater international involvement (for domestic security and for stability in the Middle East), but of the effects that different activities might have, and going in (or staying out) realizing that negative repercussions might result from any action (or inaction)...

And that either way, we will certainly have more to deal with in the future.