THE WAR ON ISIS: MORE MILITARY ACTION OR DIPLOMACY?

 

Irrespective of the fact that public support is not on his side, United Sates President, Barack Obama for the time being has ruled out the option of the American ground troops in the middle East actively participating in the fight against ISIS. President Obama’s administration, though training Sunni tribes’ fighters as part of its move to send up to 450 additional U.S. forces to Iraq, lacks formal authorization by Congress to take military action against the militants. The United States is also sending weapons to Sunni tribes, as well as the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, who are operating under Iraqi command, in order to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The additional U.S. military personnel will train and advise Iraqi and tribal troops at the Taqaddum military base in eastern Anbar province.

Fearing that he might lead the U.S. back into another quagmire in Iraq and the surrounding region, after spending years trying to wind down the war, Obama has been very cautious. A war which has caused the death of thousands; leaving thousands more homeless and displaced and leaving in its wake a cauldron of chaos and suffering. His central strategy for months has been to combine U.S. air strikes against ISIS strongholds with helping to train and arm Iraqi military and friendly militias in Iraq and Syria to carry the fight to the terrorists. The U.S. currently has over 2,500 troops in Iraq, but they are primarily providing security and advice to the Iraqi government while staying far away from the fighting.

American Public support on the other hand appears to be growing for a greatly enhanced U.S. role in combating ISIS jihadists. A margin of about two-to-one now supports deploying more U.S. ground troops to fight and destroy the terror group. Sixty-two percent of those surveyed across the country said they favor sending in ground troops compared with 30 percent who oppose it. Moreover, nearly 70 percent say they are very confident or somewhat confident that the U.S. and its European and Middle Eastern allies will eventually prevail over ISIS. If public opinion is followed, this will invariably mean more weapons, more violence, loss of life and loss of property.

It is significant that the United States of America and its citizens are concerned and are willing to help the victims who are under so much distress in Iraq and Syria. Whether it is a matter of good conscience, moral obligation, economic prowess or political strategy, it is imperative that they help the people there who are indeed suffering. Considering that they played no small role in casting the region into its present state of chaos and violence, trying to repair some of the damage, therefore, makes sense. But sending more American troops there will repair nothing. Lobbying for the ground troops to fight will do less. In fact, it will do the opposite: the war will be prolonged; there will be increasing human suffering, which would serve the interests of the Islamic State and other extremist enemies.

Most interventions in the world; Africa, the Middle East etc. over the last half-century have been aimed at resolving problems created by previous interventions. The case of Iraq and Syria fits the bill perfectly. America somehow still believes that there is a military solution to problems afflicting the Middle East. In fact there is none. It is time to break the cycle of intervening, withdrawing, and then returning to clean up the unexpected mess. History has proven to us over and over that this cycle of conflict only generates unfathomable consequences. Military action in conflict situations around the world should never be the only option. Dialogue, negotiation, mediation and diplomacy have been known to work wonders in conflict prevention, management and resolution.

We, as citizens of the world have the moral obligation to help our fellow men and women in need especially those found in areas which have been ravished by conflicts. We need to, however, first before anything else, give those affected the chance to work out their own issues without foreign interference. Americans should finally give Middle Easterners a chance to shape their own future. We may have a moral and strategic duty to help them — but through an intense political and diplomatic effort, definitely not by fighting. Over the past couple of years we have all but ignored this option. We set so many conditions for discussions among warring factions in Syria that we have never been able to entice warring factions to the table. Instead of sending more troops, more weapons and billions of dollars, we should drop our shortsighted refusal to negotiate with powerful countries and factions without whom these conflicts can never be settled.

Peace is possible. A non-violent solution in dealing with various conflicts occurring throughout the world is the way forward. In-doing so, violence and war become memories of yesteryears and the effects of war and conflict which among others include poverty, underdevelopment, loss of life and human suffering in general can be averted. Unfortunately, among the victims of war, women and children suffer the most. Economic activities come to a standstill; schools are destroyed and education becomes just a dream as another generation is subjected to horror and suffering. However alternative methods which do not involve military action but dialogue, mediation, diplomacy can go a long way to avert this horror. Peace is possible.

Related