So the only problems are geography, religion, politics, and culture? Good to know. On the other hand, it seems like our intelligence agencies have done an outstanding job in preventing ISIS - inspired terrorism in the recent past. Maybe we should just be grateful for that, and realize we can't 'cure' the Middle East?
16
@DALE1102 Perhaps we can't cure the Middle East, but how can we defend ourselves?
1
It's laughable to believe that the US has the power to effect positive change in the Arab world. The biggest effort to date, the removal of Saddam from power, has produced a result that can hardly be described as positive.
18
There are two major problems: the dispossession of the Palestinians and the madrassas throughout the Sunni world preaching Wahhabism.
In both cases the US is supporting the wrong side: the people who are making these problems worse.
In a few years, some disgruntled Sunnis (like the 19 Sunnis on 9/11, 16 from Saudi Arabia) will pull off another large scale criminal action, maybe not as large as 9/11. Then we will panic and bomb the wrong people again.
Then the cycle will repeat.
I've said this before and I know it is not popular or comfortable: the adults in the Middle East are the Iranians and we will be smart to seek their friendship and support.
4
Are the problems that enable Isis/Daesh in the dessert in which it is fighting, or are they in the countries its fighters and their families originated from? A related NYTimes article described a graphic designer from Canada named “Amy”, the wife of a fighter, who dreamed of once again enjoying a large Tim Horton’s coffee, and she said this seemingly without irony. Many of the Isis fighters were our neighbors in the homeland or in France Belgium, UK and Russia. I think we have to look to our own societies and how we manage diversity and inclusion. Or down the line our children will be fighting Daesh’s successor.
5
@David Bresch MD
I would also say that many of our friends and neighbors are white supremacists, etc. they are not any less dangerous.
1
"the United States, together with other great powers, must help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild. "
This sounds like a good idea, but the world is more complicated. We tried to help countries like Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild, but we did not succeed. In Iraq, we forced out a horrible, aggressive tyrant, Saddam Hussein, who horrifically abused his own people and invaded neighboring Kuwait. We tried to rebuild a better government in Iraq to replace Hussein. Yet, now that it's all over, many feel we did more harm than good. This may or may not be true, but many believe it to be the case.
The moral is that it's hard, probably impossible, for major powers such as the US to "help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild." We tried this and it seems not to work.
We cannot keep spending trillions of dollars and countless lives on unending horrific wars in countries where the wars can never be won.
The US needs to be strong militarily, but the focus should be on defense. We should provide humanitarian foreign aid, but we also need to take care of social needs at home.
Like almost all Americans I believe that our strong democracy and our economic system based on regulated capitalism, is as good as it gets. But imposing our model in lands where our ways are at odds with well established local culture is a fools' errand.
30
@Alex
One thing we did not do is to help those countries rebuild. We tore down the old system and allowed a new one, also a bad one, to rise up on its own, while our businesses profited and our military flexed its muscles (to limited effect).
8
@Thomas Zaslavsky
We poured billions of dollars into the rebuilding efforts. You may find it difficult to persuade me otherwise, since I saw that in person.
7
@Christopher Carrier
I don't disagree with you. But those rebuilding efforts did little to help them rebuild. U.S. and local corruption siphoned off a lot of the money. Shoddy construction by U.S. or other contractors resulted in unusable buildings. Governments we supported were divisive and incompetent. Etc.
2
This is a wise and prophetic analysis of the current situation in the Middle East. There is no quick fix. A holistic solution requires long-term intelligence and development coordination among the outside powers - US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, EU - to thwart ISIS and spur regional economies; heavy, immediate investment in education throughout the region, including in refugee camps, geared toward instilling tolerance, moral values and job skills; and good governance in each country, with a commitment to minority and women's rights under new constitutions. Could it be done? The Marshall Plan after WWII shows that it can. With the current crop of venal, corrupt, self-interested leaders in most of the countries involved (including the US), the outlook is more dubious.
7
Military might will never make right. You can destroy human beings and buildings with ease, but you cannot destroy an ideology. Making right will make military might, and the loss of blood and treasure, unnecessary.
What is making right?
It is a re-commitment of human rights for all. It is the enforcement of international laws. It is non-interference in the cultural lives of others. It is putting morality ahead of financial gain.
16
@Greg
Nice beliefs, but not supported by historical events. It was military "might" that defeated Japan and Germany in WWII. This effectively destroyed the relevant ideologies.
In case you haven't noticed, international laws are not easy to enforce and are routinely ignored. I wish this were not the case, but I can't help noticing that it is.
8
@seattle expat
You're right about Japan and Germany. I meant the comment to be current day, or since WW2, and when ideologies hold the high ground.
@Greg May bad ideas have been eliminated over time; well, reduced to noise. Many religions are no more. Feudalism isn't touted anywhere, and few are demanding Monarchy either.
Donald Trump, of course, can't "consider" anything. He has the intellect of an amoeba, with all due respect to amoebas, and the moral character of Atilla. Stupid people are almost always rude and heartless as well. Just ask his employees, or his investors.
The United States has installed and funded puppet governments and dictators througout the Middle East and elsewhere, over the course of several decades, including Saddam Hussein himself (originally a CIA hit man). And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. And Hosni Mubarek. And Hamid Karzai. And ...
As much as I hate Donald Trump, I'd be furious if Iraq invaded DC and installed a cleric in the Oval. And it's far more than physical violence, such as the shooting down of Iranian Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. The Clinton sanctions murdered half a million Iraqi children, who were denied everything from food to medical supplies. The reason that a madman like John Bolton is never unemployed is because each president is more militaristic than the previous president. Obama holds the record: eight full years of war.
The United States is an evil empire, like all empires. The Unites States, Israel (a military base, not a nation) and Saudi Arabia (who fund Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and murder Yemenis daily) are an axis of evil in the Middle East.
Trump says they have. What gives? You mean by this revelation that Trump does not know what he is talking about? Is this a twitter win only? Wow. He is a liar also? And, that’s not all right? Fool, narcissistic? Unreliable as a leadership icon? Yes? Well what do you know!
1
ISIS, like Al Qaeda, is a state of mind as much it is a nation state. Such are very hard to stamp out.
See also Confederate States of America (CSA).
1
The ‘conditions’ that give birth to Islamic extremism are to be found in the dozens of passages in the Koran calling for the extermination of all non-Muslims.
1
So there are more Muslim supporters of ISIS around the world than we have been told by the media. Good to know.
2
You can’t defeat an ideology with guns, look at the resurgence of Neo Nazis in America despite our grandparents defeating them in WWII.
2
Only Fox watchers think that IS is gone. They are being actively deceived and/or they prefer their willful ignorance. Right now the evangelicals want to believe that god sent a liar, conman and thief named Trump. For the rest of us, Trump has done more for atheism. Maybe IS’s followers will despise him so much that they’ll become atheists too? No god to kill for, no god to be martyred for...not a bad idea.
3
ISIS, like Al Qaeda, is a state of mind as much it is a nation state. Such are very hard to stamp out.
See also Confederate States of America (CSA).
1
That Trump, his cronies, and a predecessor (Bush) would declare a win, shows how limited was/is their thinking, and examples how the US in general has a narrow view on so many pressing problems. It might be a strategic win for the US, its coalition forces, even for Assad's Syria - but in the moment wins do not a victory make.
No matter the battles we're waging, whenever a spokesperson, an elected official, even law enforcement, can point to a "win", its often blown-up into a large scale victory. Take the benefits some students have had with the voucher system. Its proponents will declare a victory, and greedy supporters and politicians will jump right on board. No matter the sample size is tiny. Same holds for a drug bust, or a housing initiative that provides for a few localized wins. Politicians and advocates scream victory.
The Islamic "State" (in Iraq/Syria) is now just the victim of bad labeling, as its been disassembled from a "State" down to a loose network of cells. That will likely be a huge thorn in many nations sides for years to come. Baghdadi being alive or not.
But the idiots currently occupying the White House, will mark the coalition taking of Baghouz a solid full victory, and move on. Much like Trump would declare a mere real estate deal of intent, or an executive order a victory.
As the Mueller report being finished merely puts us all on the other side of a threshold, closing one door - so too does this mere win in Baghouz.
It ain't over.
1
We were killing jihadis in Portugal as early as 711 A.D., in the First Jihad, Mr. Gerges, and they were not in Europe then, or now, because of "broken politics in the Arab and Islamic world" or illegitimate state institutions, or due to geopolitics.
And since we won at the Siege of Lisbon in 1147 A.D., thanks in no small part to British mercenaries, we know what it means to stop jihadis dead in their tracks.
It's 2019.
Nothing has changed.
There are mercenaries in Europe right now, hunting down and killing jihadis, Mr. Gerges. We know something you don't know: The Way of Jihad is enshrined in the Koran, that is the Cause that Gave Birth to the Islamic State--Jihad in the Koran.
As a Malay Special Branch counterterrorist--yes, a Muslim Malay Special Branch counterterrorist--told me in 2008, "There is no Allah in jihad. And there is no jihad in Allah."
Let that sink in.
He's a Muslim counterterrorist honcho who gets paid to kill jihadis for a living. And he may not have a PhD in geopolitics but he was in line when God was handing out common sense.
Once every imam in every mosque preaches that there is no Allah in jihad and their is no jihad in Allah, the Way of Jihad will find its way to footnotes in dissertations and not onto the front pages of newspapers. Until then, we'll keep killing the jihadis wherever they may roam. We read history, over here, and apply its lessons on the street.
2
Trump is clearly ignorant about geopolitics and history, but you’d think that he might have heard that saying about not tempting fate...
1
Let us not forget that the "problems" that gave birth to the Islamic State fanatics are named Dick Cheney and George Bush, who, out of pure, evil greed and fabricated evidence, perpetrated a war against Iraqis and tore their society, infrastructure, economy and environment to smithereens while feeding multi-billion dollar, no bid contracts to their slithering friends in the military industrial cesspool. Until the world sees that these murderous war criminals are prosecuted to the fullest extent, there will never be any trust in the motives of the USA, and no trusting cooperation.
Taking religion seriously is the problem. The Enlightenment respect for man's focused mind broke the intellectual back of Christianity. The same must happen to Islamic totalitarianism. But until then, Iran and Saudi Arabia must be invaded and its religious leaders hung in public. Quick and easy end of Jihad.
2
Clearly ISIS has suffered a massive defeat, what Gerges means to say is that ISIS has not been eradicated, and it hasn't.
A UN report says ISIS still controls between 14,000 and 18,000 militants in Iraq and Syria, including up to 3,000 foreigners.
The US Special Envoy to the Global Coalition To Defeat IS, James Jeffrey, said the USA believes there are between 15,000 and 20,000 IS "armed adherents active" in the region, many of them in sleeper cells.
Obviously they are transforming back into a clandestine terror organization, and when Mr. Gerges says "a counterterrorism strategy is not sufficient" we should understand that what is meant here is that neither the USA nor Syria, Iraq, and other countries they might operate in have the patience or are willing to spend the resources required to really defeat them.
It's sure to be ugly, but the question of just what American interests are in this mess remains very difficult to understand and decide.
To the extent that ISIS represents a Sunni constituency opposed to the Shite government in Iraq and the Assad/Alewite government in Syria there may be no path to reconciliation.
The irony is that these Jihadis seek to carve a homeland for their caliphate, brandishing scripture ... how does this differ from the founding of Israel ... other than that they have failed?
If ISIS actually had a state, how long could they actually maintain such a state? Would they collapse on their own? Or would they morph to functional?
If you really want to get a sense of why this will never end, do a bit of research on the differences between Sunni and Shia.
It's like the Hatfield's and McCoy's, but with AK-47s and car bombs. They barely even know why they're fighting anymore.
4
This Middle East Whack-a-Mole will continue indefinitely, as will all the US involvement in the area. It is the best justification for the corporate welfare racket known as the DoD.
1
Having seen Daesh propaganda, it's clear that the movement is sociopathic. It bears no comparison with resistance to oppression or any serious social movement, it's merely violence that uses religion as an instrument.
2
Another ivory tower fantasy. The past is passed and broken countries will fix themselves or stay broken. The United States poured billions into creating a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and failed miserably.
If the United States was so inept, and broke Iraq, why on earth does anyone want its assistance now?
It makes no sense to say that ISIS has the means to wage worldwide war, and then say that the Middle East needs help and aid.
The fighting will stop when Muslims decide the fighting will stop. Non-Muslim countries will have nothing to do with it, when it finally ends.
1
Ahem.
1) "the Saudi-Iran clash is driven" by the USA and Israel.
2) Iran has an excellent record, much better than the USA's, of ridding the world of ISIS.
3) Let's make friends with the Iranians, our natural ally.
I don’t like DJT either, but why are people objecting to a perfectly accurate use of the word “defeat?”
If you have political control over extensive territory and then your military suffers tremendous losses and you’re physically ejected and left with nothing, you have been defeated. You may not have been eradicated, but defeated you have mightily been.
1
All of the handwringing in these pages — about the potential of a societal collapse in Europe and America and other Western democracies; about our "fractured" media and political system, as the New Yorker called it a few days ago; about the debilitating scourge of racism, sexism, transphobia and on and on, always imminent, never happening — is nothing more than clickbait compared to the ongoing dystopia that is much of the Middle East and Islamic parts of Central Asia. The weighty, intractable issues packed into this article are condensed milk compared to our skimmed. It's almost too much too ponder, a disheartening mess that one despairs of ever being cleaned up. Yet clean it up we must, somehow, whatever it takes.
2
People will die. Planes may be brought down by bombs. That is all the evil pious can do. Their calculation is that bloodshed will win them paradise. It is so 7th century.
It is the price we shall pay to keep the evil pious at bay. What these pious dont realise is that despite some deaths life goes on and they are forgotten.
It’s a bittersweet victory. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in the most gruesome and medieval fashion when ISIs rolled into Iraq and Syria unimpeded. That resulted in a mass migration of Muslims into Europe of biblical proportions, causing explosions in crime and a wiping away of European identity in many areas. All because Obama made a campaign promise to bring all troops home, in complete disregard for his military advisers and common sense. A fifth grader could have told you the day we leave Iraq, the terrorists would just come right back in. And even as they did, unimpeded, Obama tried convincing us to ignore the “JV Team”. To make matters worse, if that is even imaginable, Obama employed a policy of “containment” with ISIS, never taking the gloves off the military to wipe them out. It took a guy like Trump to accomplish initially in 8 months, and now finally 2 years, what Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t do in 8 years. And now the Democrat Party wants to go back to that same liberal governance??
I don’t think so.
1
Religious wars have been going on since the dawn of time and only a fool would say that ISIS has been defeated.
It may take months , years or a generation but what they believe in has not been eradicated from this planet and may never be.
However you can be sure of one thing, Trump will say that he personally wiped it out.
1
Slowly but surely Western Judeo Christian cultures are going to come around the realization that ISIL or genital mutilation, or beheading, or arranged marriages, or interminable graft that prevents development, are endemic to certain cultures and leave those cultures to enjoy or prevent the radical intensity they bring to their locales. It's on you, folks, to save yourselves from yourselves. We don't improve your lot, and we should be directing our money to our own problems. Islamic State is a psychological problem of young men that manifests in gun play and violence and radical theological rule. You need psychiatrists.
2
Trump crushed ISIS, after it had filled the vacuum created by Obama's feckless Syria policy. As for the writer's suggestion that we fix Middle Eastern countries who lack the capability of self governance, presumably with cash, I reject playing the role of hostage to the irredeemable and unruly. ISIS may very well re-emerge. Thankfully we spend more on bombs than any country in the world. We will be happy to drop them on ISIS once again.
1
Islamic countries refuse to provide women the same rights as men. Men rule these countries and have caused nothing but hardship for their people. Give women equal rights and bring them in to help govern and your lives will change for the better.
2
The Sunni and the Shia have hated each other for 1,400 years. Over what? A pseudo-religious view of the world, and an Islamist desire to take over the world, neither of which has gone away.
And you think jobs will solve the issue? That's a laughable suggestion. The problem starts with the madrasa, where impressionable humans are being brainwashed into believing an inhuman insanity.
The only thing that will eliminate ISIS from the world, or more broadly the Islamic Caliphate, is to jail or kill its members, one by one.
1
Makes no sense. He says Americans "should know that the next phase of the struggle against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda will be complex, costly and prolonged."
And the problem is failed states, and Saudi, Iranian conflict.
So the solution is to overthrow all those governments and replace with benevolent ones? Democracies? Kingdoms?
Of course we can't do that, even trying would increase conflict. Logical conclusion is to stay away till they resolve their problems.
But Americans are a funny people, since something should be done, we have to do something. Even if it's doomed to failure (we can rationalize it's not,) costly, stupid and makes a great recruiting tool to fight clueless crusaders.
2
The author's reasoning seems sound until he comes to his conclusions.
He states that the US and other powers"wantonly... fuel" rivalries, and that these powers "must help Muslim societies reconcile, heal, and rebuild". Those are loose and strange charges and prescriptions.
Islamist groups will remain a threat as long as the East and West do not crack down harshly on them. Additionally, if we have learned anything, it is that these Moslem societies must diagnose their problems and heal themselves.
3
I recall that victory over IS was declared a few months back. But that's the real utility of terrorism, isn't it? It comes back no matter how often you manage to "defeat" it and then you get to "defeat" it again.
Endless winning!
1
These groups never go away they just come back with another name, a new location there is no end of desperate men who have nothing and don’t mind dying,
Their governments are corrupt and after decades of fighting nothing changes, money is spent for change yet no oversight.
It is unfortunate right now we are creating terrorist by putting children in cages , not providing an education , they are hungry and living with no shelter. Do we think these children no matter where they are will forget?
We could do a Marshall Plan but we had a GOP who wanted to fight rather than rebuild. Hopefully with Democrats in charge a new approach will be implemented.
1
I often wonder how many atheists (in the mid east) are involved in these wars. I think the number is 0. I have never seen an atheist video cutting off heads of non believers for religious reasons.
1
So easy to keep harping on a dead horse. If you dare and have a conscious speak up against the most vicious dictator so far of the 21st.century, Assad. He is still in power despite the tremendous crimes he committed against his people. The horrid fall of Alepo under the world'e eyes is tantamout to the fall of Teruel during the spanish civil war, nothing has changed. I refer you to the great article by the humanist Jimmy Carter on the same paper pleading for the syrian revolution and comparing their aspirations to that of the founding fathers. Not only we sent a signall to the world that mass killing of your own people is okay, but we strengthened the Evil Empire with its surrogate Iran. Turn your pen toward Assad.
"Specifically, instead of wantonly fueling geostrategic rivalries and inflaming Arab-Israeli tensions, the United States, together with other great powers, must help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild."
The US has spent untold billions over several decades trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue with absolutely nothing to show for it. Now you say that we need to do the same elsewhere in the middle east? Surely you are joking.
The US, "other great powers" (whoever that is) and everything else under the sun cannot solve the centuries old grievances, jealousies, treachery and pathologies that propel the dysfunction in the Arab middle east. Only the Arabs can do that. Why don't they own the problems they have caused themselves for a change, and do something about them?
Yes, ISIS could very well come back under similar conditions, and those conditions were massive financial and arms support by American allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States and at least 500 million dollars from the US Pentagon which tried to train “moderates” indistinguishable from ISIS and who eventually defected to ISIS with all their American cash and arms. A clever way of supporting anti-Assad Terrorists while “not supporting” them even though our goals were similar. And of course, the massive theft of Syrian oil reaching the market through convoys to Turkey until the Russians stopped them enriching ISIS with the bombing which we refused to do against Isis.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/18/pentagon-wasted-500-million-syrian-rebels/
“They also suggest that the militants learned from mistakes the United States made in 2003 after it invaded Iraq, including the decision to purge members of Saddam Hussein’s ruling party from their positions and bar them from future employment. That decree succeeded in erasing the Baathist state, but also gutted the country’s civil institutions, creating the power vacuum that groups like ISIS rushed to fill”.
NYT
Different war, same mistakes.
You can never defeat crime or terrorism.
But you can't claim to be the Islamic State without a state. If the USA controlled no land and the people were not subject to its laws, would it exist as united states?
The USA created ISIS from its war crimes in Iraq.
Why were the women allowed to pass freely out of the area as though they weren’t themselves ISIS fighters? Western gender bias. They’re clearly dangerous and will perpetuate the ISIS dogma.
3
I am sick of reading Op-Eds attempting to appear 'fair' by apportioning blame all round. In some cases the blame is clearly attributable to one single party.
Leading U.S. politicians, including Hillary Clinton, have publicly admitted creating Al Qaeda in order to fight the Soviet Union. Many other politicians have recently admitted the bombings of Libya and Syria were botched attempts at regime change that left both nations at the mercy of ISIS.
What the author doesn't write is that the U.S. was misled by Saudi Arabia into permitting the latter to support supposed freedom fighters who proved to be Saudi-created Wahhabi fanatics intent on killing moderate Sunnis and Shi'ites alike, not to mention the religious minorities who had previously enjoyed the full protection of Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Assad.
Prior U.S. blunders had nothing to do with Trump. But we can rest assured Trump will further fuel Radical Islam through additional thoughtless acts, following his declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, his support for Israeli settlers and his 'awarding' the Golan Heights to Israel.
Success in preventing a resurgence of ISIS requires U.S. pressure on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Since the U.S. refuses to do this, by inference the U.S. deserves the major blame for the inception and rise of Radical Islam. A reading of Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" should convince those, dubious of my statements, that U.S. policies since 1947 led to ISIS.
These are people who cut off people's heads on camera, who fooled and raped children. There is no coming back from that. These are vicious monsters who see empathy as weakness and correctly assessed when they began that the response from the last administration would be tepid. It's why they dared to flout every standard of decency. How many innocent people suffered so long or died because of what looks like empathy or the no possible victory mentality of this article and so many like it that Trump's predecessor embraced? Have empathy for the people who were beheaded or were burned alive in cages. Children everywhere who read the poison put out by them online need to see what happens when you choose to be a monster. No hiding it because we are afraid it will cause hate. They already hate. We aren't going to win hearts and minds. Don't tell me it will create more of them. Kids seeing Isis initially succeed caused that. Don't tell me some of those who fought against them are also bad. People like the victors and if it isn't us, civilization dies. Don't tell me we have to be better than them. We already are better. Killing monsters is being better. Yes, there are more of them out there. We have to be inspired to finish the generational fight.
As for the usual anti-anything Trump narrative that continues here, it helped elect him and may help him to a second term. And, given the no borders, abortion through childbirth, socialism opposition, let us hope.
1
There. there. Of course it hasn't.
The new lack of territory of ISIS is important.
The territory was attracting hundreds of young people from Europe, Russia and the US...
Anyone thinking this is a good guys versus bad guys story isn’t really grasping reality. Thank you so much for a great article bringing some of the subtleness to the fore.
This article appears to be an indirect propaganda for Islamic State. The article implies that ISIS can never be defeated even though its territorial caliphate was eliminated by decisive actions by Trump because the conditions as described for their defeat will never achieve. Another purpose of the article was to belittle Trump and his achievements. The reasons this author attributes as the reasons for ISIS's growth are not the real reasons. The real reasons are: First, we had an ineffective leader as the President of America when ISIS captured its territories. ISIS is gone from the territories when that president is gone. Second, there are people in Islam who believe that ISIS is true Islam. Neck slashing is a technique used by Islamic State to terrorize the people which was used by Mohammed in his time. That is a fact of the history which we should not sugar coat in the name of PC. As long as these kind of believers exist, ISIS remnants will be there and we should be vigilant. But they are not a powerful force. Arab-Persian and Sunni-Shia revelries have ben there for a long time and that is not the real reason for the growth of ISIS. Of course, Islamic societies must move away from rigid rules of their book and bring democracy and human rights to their societies to create a just society.
1
The Sunni/Shiite divide has been around for centuries, and seemed to "manage" it locally. It is too simplistic to blame Muslim feuds.
There is something deeper that has internationalized it. I think that "something" is related to US foreign policy promulgated following WWII. The US policy, driven by corporate need to grow, is easily summarized by a George Kennan 1948 policy memo, "our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security..."
If the US were intellectually honest we would see the havoc we have created not just in our contiguous borders, but beyond. For example, the recent concern with regard to immigrants from Mexico and Central America is primarily "blowback" (a la Chalmers Johnson) from US foreign policy in the Global South.
The Sunni and Shiite religious feud is the cause of much un rest in the world. It is up to the Muslims worldwide to come to amicable terms. Almost all the rest of the bad conditions in the middle East are the result of this enmity. The US should get out of the area entirely. We do not understand the problem, from what I observe of leadership comments and actions. We should just get out, now. The Afghanistan war was necessary, the Iraq war an unnecessary debacle. Get. Out. Now.
2
'The corrupt and dysfunctional Baghdad government has neglected the emaciated Sunni-inhabited cities (such as Mosul) that were liberated from the Islamic State’s rule.'
Read about the history of Mosul. For centuries it was a multicultural, multiethnic, multi faith city, with a Jewish quarter, Nestorian Assyrians, Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Turkome, and Sunni Kurds all living cheek by jowl.
All that changed after Mesopotamia became Iraq. Successive Iraqi strongmen forced non-Sunni Arabs out of Mosul, culminating under Sadaam,
The Mosul Jews, who had lived in Mosul for two thousand years were all forced out, as were most Assyrians, their homes given to Saddam's Sunni Arab supporters.
Mosul only became dominated by Sunni Arabs recently in the way I have described above. Historically, Mosul was not a Sunni Arab city.
5
Islamic state has been crushed from its cradle in which it was born within the cradle of civilization (Iraq and Syria) but not eliminated from the minds and hearts of many. Agree that it could raise its brutal ugly head somewhere. But the leadership has disappeared into thin air leaving the army under the tanks of US and allied forces. The leadership of ISIS can no longer expect loyalty from its former army and hopefully the founders of ISIS will be hunted down and brought to justice for their crimes against global humanity.
For now the leadership of the Trump administration deserves to be applauded for not making the land war against ISIS a long unending war. The Kurds and others can now ensure that the ISIS never again resurrects its beach head while mopping operation to capture the last of the members of ISIS scattered around the world.
The enormity of ISIS octopus like strange hold during the Obama years is simply astounding. That it has taken over 2 years for the Trump administration after unleashing full force of the American military power to defeat ISIS forces is unimaginable. Thanks a million Trump , the US and allied defense forces and all those who laid down their lives or lost their body parts or returned to their homes in worse shape than when they went to Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. The fight goes on but it is a good day for America and our planet is safer place.
Thanks also to Russia and Assad's forces in making the defeat of ISIS possible.
2
@Girish Kotwal
"Thanks also to Russia and Assad's forces in making the defeat of ISIS possible."
You forgot to thank Iran, which made vital military and other contributions to the defeat of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
2
@Girish Kotwal
Are you truly thanking Russian and Assad's forces for defeating Islamic State? They played no role in that struggle.
This is a semantic exercise masquerading as analysis. Many people, certainly including me, would say that you've been defeated if you lose all of your territory and most of your armed forces. The author can maintain the contrary only if "defeated" means "absolutely obliterated," which is an odd and not very convincing use of language; and that's all it is.
3
@Bob Acker. A functional definition of defeated would be something like “stops causing serious problems that you need to combat”. The opposing force does not need to control territory to be undefeated. Maybe you are too young to remember the Viet Cong?
3
The Islamic State has been destroyed. It no longer exists. Claiming the Islamic State had not been defeated because some ISIS terrorists survive is like claiming Imperial Japan was not conquered in 1945 because some Japanese soldiers continue to hold out on islands never occurred by U.S. troops.
3
@William Case
Totally different scenario. The isolated IJF soldiers lacked working communications; they didn't know that Hirohito had ordered all IJF forces to lay down their arms and surrender. They didn't form resistance cells after surrender.
Da'esh is more akin to various Provisional IRA splinter groups in Northern Ireland. They too lack territory; they lack legitimacy. That doesn't stop rabidly anti-British Irish-American Roman Catholics from funding their murders.
Money enables everything. While Da'esh still has funds, it will fight on.
3
No, it is not the same at all. Most important of the many differences is that Imperial Japan surrendered. Imperial Japan, of course, was an ideology above all and it failed and surrender marked its end. ISIS, as the nation building branch of Islamic extremist ideology, is doing just fine and has not at all surrendered; allowing it to take root again. Japan had no such potential.
3
"But if he wants to celebrate a true “victory” over the Islamic State he should consider the long-term consequences of his actions."
Donald Trump is not capable of considering the long-term consequences of his actions. If he were he would not be tweeting the way he is, making unfounded and unsupported assertions about people and countries, and he would not be maligning any person who disagrees with him while making sure to cozy up to the strongmen of the world.
Do not count on the United States doing anything when it comes to ISIS. We are not being run by rational people. All the adults have left the room and this is, unfortunately, quite helpful to ISIS. The cost of Donald Trump's presidency is going to be enormous.
8
ISIS was created as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. The Saudis are the largest financiers of al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups. They also spread Wahhabism that fuels these terrorist groups. Why are the Saudis not held accountable by the US if we really wanted to fight terrorism and the root cause, yet they are our close ally?
11
@steve
Saudi Arabia does not finance Islamic State. IS's main sources of income are through drug and oil cartels.
KSA is not blameless, and Islamist policies certainly also originated in KSA.
Oh, yeah. It's up to the US to invest more into other countries where ISIS ideology remains. We haven't done enough to rid the world of such extremists? Perhaps no matter what we do, they will attempt to rebuild and come here again, and take over more countries around the world, I don't think giving someone a good job will stop him from becoming a monster within.
4
No, you haven’t done enough.
ISIS is the direct result of USA blundering in Iraq; an invasion that should never have occurred and a war that should never have been fought.
Why does the USA think it has the right to act like an out-of-control cowboy in its foreign policy, then deny any responsibility for the chaos that inevitably follows?
If the USA truly wants to be rid of ISIS and other extremist organisations, then it should absolutely follow the advice suggested in this article.
How about planning for and implementing a medium to long term strategy that will assist in the rebuilding of these devastated countries, perhaps garnering a little respect and affection for the US in the Middle East instead of the blanket hatred with which America is now regarded by millions of people?
Your nation spends trillions upon trillions of dollars on war machinery and war itself, yet very little, comparatively, on assisting those benighted countries where the US wages war to recover and rebuild from the devastation that America itself has caused.
Less support for corrupt and brutal regimes in the Middle East and Latin America would also be helpful. Why, in the name of god, would the USA continue to extend friendly relations and support for the despotic House of Sa’ud when it is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia is behind the financing of Wahhabism and Muslim extremism around the globe?
If the US wants to be a global player, it should take responsibility for the mess it causes.
11
Quite a karmic mess. What would the world be like today if the US had not financed and trained bin Laden in Afghanistan? Or, if C Powell had told the UN there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or, for that matter, what if Al Gore had not been defeated by the Supreme Court? I don't like Trump one bit, but don't tell me he's the worst President in history. I don't know how George W and C Powell can sleep at night. And, as the article points out their nightmare is not going to stop anytime soon.
6
Dear Fawaaz,
The FACT that ISIS has not been fractured and most importantly since its leadership are still intact, those are BIG solid evidence that ISIS hasn't been defeated. On the contrary, that implies strength!
I monitor their chatter and activities closely, actually I say they are far more dangerous now. They have no population to administrate and their financing still intact. If any one monitors what is happening on the ground in eastern Syrian and in Iraq, will now how ISIS is still active.
The US has to find an arrangement with them the same way it is currently doing with Taliban, whom the US still designates as a terrorist organization. The only problem with that I believe ISIS is trying to draw the US in ...to bleed it. Bleed it in blood and treasure.
Frankly, I believe the USA's policies are feeding this beast. ISIS is a different beast. ISIS with little support, it cane rain havoc across the middle east. They are a potent force. They are a combination of Bathist and Salafist.
5
@Salah Mansour
So what you are saying is that there are far more Muslim supporters of ISIS than we have been told.
Exactly.
The fact that the rise of ISIS was even possible, that it had any appeal so far and wide, together with the number of years it has remained in existence should render sober anyone who is jubilant enough to call this a victory. As the Canadian fighter in the report said, ISIS lives on outside of Syria.
While we remain in a worldwide leadership vacuum, the future of ISIS may morph yet again as the most delicate phase is what comes next. The Western allies need to turn to their Muslim allies and urge them to come up with a follow up to the Western military offensive: the fight for the hearts and souls of those who were drawn to the idea of a caliphate. That follow up must be a call to return to the fold. Such a call must come from Muslims, with no visible or implicit involvement of the West. This comes at at time when MbS is consolidating power in Saudi Arabia, and on the heels of Saudi repression and aggression against its own outside of its borders.
"You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea."
Medgar Evers
-
Things Trump Did...
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
3
ISIS, and Al-Queda, like the Viet Cong have made a big impact on the US--the US voting electorate to be specific. The US has little desire to do anything other than exit Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Russia, Iran, and Turkey can proxy the next Middle East wars. Should be a real show. Israel and Saudi Arabia will have to decide if they wish to be allies. Iran, Turkey, and russia will all take turns attempting to lure the US into an alliance.
It took Great Brittan, France, and Germany a 100 years, destitution, and reduction in geopolitical status to figure out they didn't want to fight in the middle east. Hope America's leaders are smarter than that.
2
The Muslim faith requires the faithful to fight against injustice. Since injustice abounds in the Middle East the fight will continue. The plight of the Palestinians is front and centre. Simple enforcement of international law in the Israel-Palestinian conflict will go a long way to calming the situation.
5
@Greg You seriously think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a bigger problem than the Sunni-Shia/Saudi-Iran rivalry? The middle east is full of injustice and human rights abuse. I would argue that disproportionate focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been an excuse not to deal with the much deeper underlying challenges the region faces. Muslim political and religious leadership has unfortunately been more a source of injustice than a stand against it.
7
Thank you, EDT.
Muslims have been murdering one another since way before Israel became more than a hope expressed during Passover seders.
Fawaz is correct, the ideology of ISIS is rather flourishing though as DT would not push the Saudis to stop their world wide extremist Wahhabi Salafi support. As long as the Saudis are allowed to propagate their extremist ideology, ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda Jaish etc would continue to flourish.
President is solidly behind in his support of Netanyahu and MBS hence nothing we (US) does would have an impact on the issue.
6
ISIS Is temporarily without a caliphate. True.
America and the West can prevent the rise of the next Jihadist regime with a transfer of wealth and ideas.
False!
The authors recognizes that the Jihad of Isis is not over, but not that Arab societal inequality and a millennium of enmities between Arab and Western society can be improved by pacification according to Western philosophies.
Gerges claims, “Specifically, instead of wantonly fueling geostrategic rivalries and inflaming Arab-Israeli tensions, the United States, together with other great powers, must help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild.”
It seems unlikely that Mr. Trump has either the desire or vision to pursue such a farsighted strategy which struggles against greed, tribalism and human nature.
Ditto for Americans, which means we’ll be away until we’re forced back, like the powers of Europe and the Catholic Church after the last of the Crusades.
None of the authors points warrant spilling Europe and America’s blood and treasure for his misguided attempt to Westernize the post-Isis Islamic world and its population into a capitalist corporate economy that rejects its antithetical spiritual and secular traditions, even while the West begins to reject the carbon economy that is the current lifeblood of most Islamic wealth and power.
We must support peace in the Middle East while healing and protecting ourselves from our own tribal and global conflicts.
1
@Snively Whiplash IV
Gerges claims, “Specifically, instead of wantonly fueling geostrategic rivalries and inflaming Arab-Israeli tensions, the United States, together with other great powers, must help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild.”
Gerges is essentially reiterating Kipling's concept of the white man's burden, and it will be received the the scorn one might expect.
The author’s analysis is focused on the conflicts within the Arab world. These differences seem difficult to impossible to reconcile on their face. Yet at the end he throws in a gratuitous comment about the Israeli-Arab conflict, but provides no data to explain how this is related to his theme, especially since Israeli ties to many of the Arab states are now improving.
5
Where is there any mention, anywhere today, yesterday, last week, last month ISIS is alive and well because of their access to, hello?-the Internet.
This article mentions ISIS has been shown to be, "resilient, adaptive, and resourceful, tapping into the deep sense of outrage and injustice felt by Sunni Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and beyond."
They also hate the Western World, are not going away, and we need to gird for the next emergence. Their on-line recruitment and the distilation of their message should be frightening to everyone potentially in their cross-hair.
3
"Not unlike Al Qaeda — though now on a greater and more lethal scale — the Islamic State is a transnational network with bases and sleeping cells in more than a dozen countries."
And that includes its robust online presence. In fact, I'd say its cheaper for ISIS to wage war through erratic terror raids than to have to spend lives and treasure holding territory.
I also agree the huge increase in Middle East tensions--some of which intensified by Trump himself in his zeal to help Israel become more imperial and less democratic--should provide plenty of fodder and emotive fuel for ISIS to rev up its members in pursuit of continued mayhem.
2
"The group will be back unless the conditions that gave birth to it are addressed."
There's always an excuse for bad behavior.
It appears that only solution is the migration of most of the the Middle East's residents to either Europe or North America. All along the way the migrants will be remind the the world they are migrating to countries that oppress them.
4
my view of the middle east tends to rely on concepts such as corruption, superstition, tribalism, oppression and patriarchy.
so i can't read an analysis that talks about high minded things like "transparent, inclusive and representative government" without asking how those ideals actually touch ground.
after all, the corruption is certainly transparent to all, includes pretty much everything and everyone in the middle east and (like any government) represents the entrenched system of power.
i also suspect, as climate change makes vast swaths of the middle east unlivable, that we will see a misery tied to incurable ecology. a species misery -- even a speciation misery -- them, and us.
we've heard professors opine before in exactly the same language about long term commitments and far distant goals -- heard it all for a very long time now -- yet things haven't changed ... and, if blame is to be laid, it's always because we're not trying hard enough.
i do agree: a metastasized ISIS will linger for a long, long time. because the middle east is deeply resistant to change.
tell you what. let's solve the israeli-palestinian conflict first. that should be easy. after all, isn't israel "on our side" -- transparent, inclusive, representative? yes, it's not ISIS, but solve that conflict and we will at least know that change is possible.
in the meantime, try to find some new high falutin' ideals and goals. the ones you have are all worn out.
5
@drollere
"my view of the middle east tends to rely on concepts such as corruption, superstition, tribalism, oppression and patriarchy."
That is a rather ironic statement to make in this age of MeToo and Trump...
Which nation, in your mind, is the enlightened Western nation that eschews all of those things?
2
ISIS may be undermined for now but Assad is still in power (instead of on trial in The Hague), a once beautiful country with a rich history is all but destroyed, Syrians who were forced to flee causing refugee and immigration problems throughout the Middle East, Europe and North America can't easily return (at least in the short term) so sounds like the only real winner is Putin (with a little help from Trump, of course).
7
To the extent that we can power the world's economies with renewables (and vehicles with electricity), most of the money supporting these conflicts will no longer be available to the participants.
4
One major cause of our unstable society is the worsening of Social Inequality. That is, the inequality in living standards, income and wealth between those who are fortunate and those who are less-fortunate. And what amplifies this problem all the more is the Inequality of Opportunity as seen in education and good jobs. That is, the very real existence of a born-into, very nearly insurmountable inequality of opportunity.
From the onset of their lives, they weren’t standing at the same starting line with those more fortunate. And throughout their childhood, the less-fortunate kids weren’t afforded a level playing field – a fair shot at success.
Opportunity to receive an education and have a good job shouldn’t be limited on the basis of place of birth or parental background. In our world that we all share today, many of us are simply born into Inequality of Opportunity. And this injustice is sustained beyond generations, across time, and throughout the world by our Selfish Love called inheritance.
President Trump's claim that HE defeated ISIS while his predecessor was ineffective is yet another display of his disingenuousness. The successful offensive against ISIS was begun by President Obama. Trump had little to do but wait for it to achieve results.
Trump's ISIS claim is similar to his tweet a few months ago claiming credit for the unblemished safety records of U.S. airlines. Behind the scenes, his people were undermining safety and we now know the results of that policy approach.
11
Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are the inheritors of Western imperialism and hubris. Countries created by British and French cartographers with scant regard to the people living there, and our own misadventure thinking that with the removal of Saddam Hussein a flourishing democracy would suddenly bloom forth between the Tigris and Euphrates have combined to create the conditions for a radical resistance to Westernism. Economic development and giving all the people a stake in their future may overcome the worst tendencies, but we should do as much as possible to allow the indigenous people to make their own choices, rather than impose more Western-centric imperialistic ideas from a presumption of "we know better than you do." No, we don't.
If the Sunni and Shiite can get past their differences, that may help stabilize the whole region, making extremism a less appealing choice.
2
@Patrick
Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely that the Shiites and Sunnis will "get past their differences". They each have stated they want to eliminate the other. This is not a minor difference of opinion, it is religious warfare. That is
the "choice" of the "indigenous people". While the actions of the US have undoubtedly made thing worse, there were serious problems all along.
9
@Patrick:"Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are the inheritors of Western imperialism and hubris....
If the Sunni and Shiite can get past their differences, that may help stabilize the whole region,"
Western imperialism was the source of the differences between Sunni and Shiite? I think it goes further back than that.
1
@Jp
No, I didn't mean to say or imply that Western imperialism caused the Sunni-Shiite differences, rather I think that the region suffers because of both as separate problems, which taken together are worse than either one alone. Historically, the split resulted from a similar, though far less violent result than the Mormons faced in the 19th century. In both cases, when the founder of each tradition died, Muhammad for Islam, and Joseph Smith for the Mormons, there was a split amongst the surviving followers as to who should continue the movement. One group felt that the leadership should continue in the family of the founder, others thought the elders in the movement were more qualified and that the community should decide. Interestingly, in both cases the community decision became the most successful, with Sunni Muslims comprising some 85-90% of all Muslims, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based in Salt Lake City, Utah is by far the largest of the Mormon descendants.
2
While the destruction of people serves the intelligence community and well lubricated legislators in Washington and their defense industry benefactors, it does not address underlying issues, nor does it address the resulting ideology that has flourished since the invasion of Iraq. The removal if ISIS from their last controlled territory is but the first easiest step in addressing the problem. We need to understand and address the social and psychological complexities involved. To actually move the needle on the ideological hatred causing a caliphate and perpetual warfare, we will need US leadership with emotional intelligence, which we do not have at present.
5
The U.S. can't even resolve the economic and social problems of its own hinterlands. What makes you think it can resolve the problems of troubled countries on the other side of the world?
23
@Larry L. What economic crisis are you talking about? Low unemployment? 7 million job openings?
1
Perhaps ISIS has not been defeated. (Did someone make that claim?) However, ISIS no longer holds any territory directly.
We will never 'fix' the Middle East or Central Asia. Best we can do is to limit our involvement in and exposure to those areas of the world. If some Americans feel 'we need to do more' -- then they can volunteer and 'provide help' themselves -- without committing our entire nation into the debacle.
20
@Ami
A "debacle" we had a huge, a bigly role in creating...
So now we walkaway, wipe our hands of it, and leave them on their own?
Sounds typically American. Make a mess, then when the ADD kicks in we walk away. Good for us.
@Ami Yes, the US and President have declared them defeated in Syria. And you can't claim to be a state without land or people who are your subjects. Sovereignty outside of reality is delusion.
"Unfortunately, it appears that the Islamic State has both the will and limited assets necessary to survive to fight another day."
Pronouncements of victory are nothing more than political grandstanding. Nobody in the Middle East believes such pronouncements.
Driven by theology and ideology in a region driven by theology and ideology, ISIS will be back in one form or another.
The Caliphate is not yet extinct. Expect it back and if not in Syria and Iraq, somewhere else.
14
@Joshua Schwartz A Caliphate without land or subjects? Yeah, they are a real sovereign. And I'm a state too, and so are you, and so is the other person...
I'd reckon that there are very few in who actually want ISIS to disappear. The group provides justification for bloated numbers intelligence community "analysts," juicy defense contracts, and provides the basis on which the US and its allies can cooperate in the battle against a global scourge. With the collapse of the USSR, the US in particular needed a new "ism" to serve as a foreign and defense policy focus. That need will continue. ISIS-controlled territory is by no means necessary.
10
@Frank J Haydn Territory is absolutely necessary to be a state. Or is the Mafia a state? Are gangs states? Did the NZ white supremacist belong to a state?
It is a sad commentary, but we fail when we place a broad spectrum of people with similar ideologies but different moralities under the single label of "terrorists". When persons demonstrate against injustice and get violent, it is too simple to label them "terrorists". When those who are so frustrated by the injustice associate with militant groups they instantly become "terrorists". When someone vocally supports a fight against injustice they are too often labeled supporters of the "terrorists." When a political party has an ideology in common with a militant group it is painted as a "terrorist group" and sanctioned.
In today's world the French Resistance during the German occupation would be labelled a "terrorist" organization, when in fact they were freedom fighters.
This is not to excuse the criminal thugs that infiltrated and controlled ISIS.
9
@Greg
To label the originators of ISIS freedom fighters belies a complete lack of knowledge of the organization's founding and beginnings.
I highly recommend you look up Graeme Wood's work at The Atlantic. ISIS never was what you think it is.
@Greg: ISIS is comprised *entirely* of criminals.
1
@Greg That's why we shouldn't call ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorists but rather Islamic radicals or Islamofascists or some such. Yeah it's politically incorrect to say "hey this has to do with Islam!" but it's factually correct.
By contrast, our allies, the Kurds, have been known to use terrorist tactics too. They are terrorists. But not Islamic terrorists, despite actually being Muslim, because their motive is not religious but nationalistic and their politics respect the separation of religion and state.
We are not fighting terrorism. We have terrorist allies! We also have Muslim allies, so we are not fighting Islam. We are fighting Islamic radicalism that wants to spread Islamofascism across the world, something that is opposed by many who are Muslim and also many who are actually terrorists themselves.
A bit complicated but not too hard to grasp.
Trump has never said "Mission Accomplished". He has said that ISIS now holds no more territory. I have a lot more faith that Trump will keep up the pressure on ISIS now than on a former President who considered them the JV and under whom they flourished. Interesting to see which groups are fighting now to allow back into our country a woman who left the US voluntarily to align herself with ISIS and who called for attacks on those she NOW considers her fellow citizens.
30
@Bob Individual-1 said "ISIS has been 100% defeated" at three different times since the start of his administration. He was wrong the first two times. I bet he's wrong yet again.
1
@Bob It was indeed Bush 2 who created ISIS and destabilized the region by his lying war crimes.
1
Not a Putin fan but I find it astonishing that this and other such reports fail to recognize the key role played by Russia's entry into the fray. Russia unequivocally picked the Assad regime as the lesser of the two evils instead of simultaneously trying to overthrow both ISIS and Assad.
Russia's strategy had the unfortunate effect of extending the rule of a brutal dictator in Syria but it put players like Turkey and Saudi Arabia-who were playing the Americans-on notice. Once these two countries fell in line and stopped their support of "rebels" the countdown for the destruction of ISIS began.
Russia is not claiming any glory now that ISIS is defeated; they simply don't want a big bullseye on their backs.
17
@Pantagruel
Of course Russia is not claiming glory. They do not seek a leadership role in the world, because they know that are still a developing country and can barely manage their own affairs.
@Pantagruel Because ISIS would be a gentle and kind leader, unlike Assad? Perhaps we are not supposed to be at war in places where war has not been declared, where there is no national interest, to fight an ISIS we created by our war crimes against Iraq and now much of the region, and without an international coalition.
@Pantagruel
Interesting point.
We presently do not possess the political will nor intellect to affect a permanent change for the better in the Middle East. How can a “superpower” so internally divided be the catalyst for positive change in a war torn region? We can’t issue a statement on a horror show nation like North Korea without confusion in the message or disagreement about what the message and strategy even is! The whole region is ripe for a strong man with a unifying, hopeful message to emerge and lead them. It almost happened with ISIS, but their brutality and sheer black hearted evilness overshadowed any chance they have of being a real government over a vast area and its inhabitants. But the very fact that they succeed to the extent they did points out just how desperately the region needs stability of any kind.
We cannot create change unless we understand what they want and need, not confusion of what we want and need. And one thing we need is a president who isn’t overly fond of dictatorial leaders like Putin, the Saudi’s and Kim, and to reassess what type of strategy will benefit us and the people of the region. We’re learning that constant war like Afghanistan doesn’t work for anyone, and seems to encourage the bad actors to act worse than they already have. So part of the answer is us coming to terms within ourselves that we might be able to affect change which benefits people on a worldwide scale, and accept other societies for who and what they are instead of what we want them to be.
7
@Jsbliv
"We presently do not possess the political will nor intellect to affect a permanent change for the better in the Middle East. "
We cannot IMPOSE anything. If the parties to the conflict do not seek change, we cannot create it, nor force them to accept it.
9
@Frank
I never said “impose”, but suggest that we don’t have a coherent strategy to even help our friends in the region, much less deal with a threat.
The author of this article sees the genesis of ISIS in the persecution of Sunnis by Shiites. Yet it has also been said that Sunnis persecuted Shiites, and many Shiite mosques have certainly been bombed by Sunnis. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq excluded Shiites from political power, although we were told that the population of Iraq was majority Shiite. To an outsider, it seems that long ago, Islam experienced an incomplete schism it is still contending with. Haven’t there been movements within Islam to reconcile the two sects? Perhaps someone should begin such a movement within Islam.
14
@FreeDem: Ireland’s Catholic / Protestant fights have a similar history. Brexit threatens the current lull in the Troubles.
The Middle East’s problems have many causal factors. One of these is desertification due to global warming. Foreign meddling over the years from WW1’s artificial borders to Trump’s deliberate provocations by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and claiming that Israel has the right to keep land seized by military force are another.
Meanwhile, overpopulation causes further battles over increasingly scarce resources.
These problems won’t be solved by a summit attended by partisan political figures.
14
@FreeDem
What he writes is that there is a constant battle between Sunni and Shiite , which ISIS has selected its Sunni moniker not one side is persecuting unilaterally. A core of the hundreds of years battles. Protestant and Catholics have MOSTLY moved beyond this. Mostly being the operative word. Religion, the...
“second factor is the fierce Cold War between Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia and Shiite-majority Iran. Although the Saudi-Iran clash is driven by geostrategic calculations, it has taken on local sectarian overtones that play out daily on streets in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. The Islamic State has capitalized on this rivalry by portraying itself as the defender and protector of persecuted Sunnis.”
3
Israel has nothing to do with the severe problems in the Middle East. It has served as a distraction for people there who care nothing about saving Palestinians but can ignore their own real problems by blaming the Jews. Sound familiar?
Most of the Middle East countries keep Palestinians in refugee camps and have not offered citizenship unlike Israel where Palestinians vote, have their own political parties and are members of the Supreme court. For any real change, countries living in tribal societies must face truth, not narrative, in order to build a stable future. There are many fine people living in chaos. Change must come from within.
2
Trying to defeat Isis by military action in one area is like trying to pop a half deflated balloon by squeezing it.
If all the money that has been poured into military action to the incredible harm of Civilian populations had instead been given to women to initiate Economic Development programs, the Middle East would be better off and the US would be safer.
8
Here's another factor not mentioned- Iraq has a rapidly increasing population without a robust enough economy to provide its citizens with the opportunities to assure a comfortable and enjoyable life, especially for the young.
Young men, in particular, are often dangerous when they are deprived of this kind of opportunity, not being capable of taking the more patient and careful long-view that comes with the development of the prefrontal cortex.
Any country that has a population that is expanding more rapidly than their economies is likely to be destabilized in these conditions. If you look at the statistics, the relationship is pretty evident.
27
Another major complicating factor is global warming which is making many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa uninhabitable. Rising temperatures and drought are destroying rural farming communities leading to internal migrations to cities which are ill equipped for the influx. The situation is ideal for extremist recruiters.
25
Sometimes it seems the world is separated into two types of people; those who believe we all have to work together for the common good, raising up each individual toward that endeavor and those who believe in a greed-driven tribalism that rewards only those on their side (Trump and most Republicans probably fall into the latter category). It seems to me most countries in the Mideast fall into this category. The interference of the West, in search of oil and other treasure, has kept these countries in an ideological bondage, playing one group and against the other for economic benefits and keeping them from learning to get along and develop strong, independent economic and political systems using their own values. Now, there are too many young people with no schooling, training or job opportunities - only religion, distrust and hate. The west needs to stop supporting entrenched powers who themselves contribute to tribalistic wars in these countries. Here in the U.S., we need to recognize Trump and the GOP are playing that same old game and get back to showing the world that real democratic values work best.
14
@Barbara Snider >common good, raising up each individual toward that endeavor and those who believe in a greed-driven tribalism
Whether sacrificed to everyone or to some, the individual and his selfish right to his life is destoyed. Nazism is Marxism. Both are not Americanism
I think thare extremist groups which will not tolerate is article shows the impossibility, yes, impossibility, of compromise when there are religious differences, most particularly in Islam. Take Pakistan for example. There are extremist groups which will not tolerate the slightest compromise on matters like blasphemy. India is plagued with Hinduism and rage against Moslems who eat beef, since cows are sacred to Hindus. Orthodox Jewish rabbis in Israel do not permit Conservative nor Reform rabbis to perform rituals. So long as there are Sunnis and Shiites there will be strife, because religion does not permit of compromise. Terrorism arising from religious differences is just something the world will have to deal with and control as best as possible.
14
Of course ISIS will be back. This isn't a conventional army. These are terrorists! Trying to destroy the elements that created ISIS is like trying to play a game of Whack-a-Mole.
I have long believed that fighting terrorism is more of a police matter than a military one. While military surgical strikes can be effective in taking out the leadership of a group like ISIS, there can be no convention victory on the battlefield, especially terrain as formidable and unforgiving as Afghanistan and Iraq.
The terrorists are criminals. Dogged police work, excellent intel from the field, decisive action to infiltrate the cells and destroy them. That is what will defeat ISIS.
27
@Len
Terrorism is not a a person or an organization. It cannot be defeated by military means but it also cannot be defeated by police means, not without the sort of radical political and economic changes mentioned by Mr. Gerges.
@Thomas Zaslavsky Well we agree on the first part but not the second. Can all crime be defeated and/or eliminated? Clearly the answer is no. It is the same with a terrorist or a terrorist act.
My point is that fighting terrorism by using the military will only cost us blood and treasure with no measurable definitive outcome.
You fight terrorism the same way you fight organized crime: vigilance, gathering intelligence on the street, infiltrating, disrupting, eliminating.
1
As long as the Muslim people allow their lives to be governed by a religion rooted in the 12th century there will be groups like ISIS determined to keep it that way. Only when these people stand up and take their right to live as human beings in the modern world, will fundamentalist groups fade away.
56
@sheikyerbouti, Islamic ideology
is not the problem. Read the article
again. It is bad governance, exclusion,broken or weak insitutions not serving the people, economic and social injustice and exclusion of
many while the most goodies go
to the few well connected. This
breeds frustration and anger to
spur people, particularly young, to
pick up arms and fight. It has
happened in France, USA, Russia
and happening all over Arab world.
Mr. Trump and his advisers like
Mssrs Bolton and Pompeo are
unlikely to understand the factors
driving unrest and violence in ME.
Their simple minded solutions
are to support the likes of crown
prince of Saudi Arabia and Mr. Netanyahu of Israel who perpetuate
the problems.
14
@s.khan No, it's not just bad governance, etc. ISIS attracted so many foreign fighters by their extreme Islamist ideology, one that is sadly shared by many people. That this article fails to mention even the word "Islamist" only means that the author prefers to look the other way. Although most Muslims have an unfavorable opinion of ISIS and do not support the most extreme aspects of fundamentalist Islam, the Pew Research Center has found that in many countries, somewhere between 5-11% of the Muslim population has a favorable view of ISIS. (With 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, this could amount to well over 100 million people.) Add to this fact the others found by Pew Research -- that 28% of Muslims say that suicide bombing is at least sometimes justified, and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, esp. in the Middle East, are hostile to homosexuality, women's rights, and other modern values, you have the real reason why ISIS can be debilitated but not defeated.
11
@s.khan
'The second factor is the fierce Cold War between Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia and Shiite-majority Iran. Although the Saudi-Iran clash is driven by geostrategic calculations, it has taken on local sectarian overtones that play out daily on streets in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. The Islamic State has capitalized on this rivalry by portraying itself as the defender and protector of persecuted Sunnis.'
OK, so I 'read the article again'. Anything else ? To NOT think that this whole ISIS, al-Queda, et al, thing has ;religious' roots is a little past the borders of naiveté.
4
this article reads like the author is describing the USA MIC. What we have over 800 military bases spread all over the globe. We got nuclear armaments spread all over the globe: in the air on the ground and I the sea. We have a special forces deployed and in the ready, same with drones. And we got the money, the gullible youth and the generals to make it all happen militarily at any location at any time. To many we the US of America look like the bullies and terrorists. It's time for this machismo nonsense to stop and cooler heads to prevail...….fat chance right. Regime change DOES NOT WORK.
9
@jazzme2 >Regime change DOES NOT WORK.
Yeah, that's right! The US occupation of Germany and Japan was a miserable failure.
Let us ask the Yazidis if it is defeated.
10
The Islamic State has been defeated. A state is a political entity. It has a people, borders and a territory.
ISIS has none of this. But it remains a potent idea in the minds of millions who have been displaced by twenty years of warfare and have seen the world that they knew collapse around them.
Our political leaders who have been planning and executing "regime change" since 1992 have not grasped the folly of that enterprise and have no answer to the madness that they have unleashed.
It's not as if this is a new phenomenon. Almost 20 years ago Bin Laden offered a geopolitical critique of US policy in the Middle East as his rationale for 9/11. But his words have been deeply buried in the the congressional report on that tragedy.
The only way to defeat an idea is with a better idea. The US must shift many of the billions that it continues to waste in endless war and re-direct it to re-establishing civil society in Arab counties.
This will not be easy. You cannot buy reliable allies. These relationships must be built over time.
If we had done this years ago, instead of resorting to drones and bombing, we might have found ourselves on the right side of the Arab spring.
In the 1600's Europe went though a 30 year war. It began as religious conflict but over time became geopolitical struggle that consumed the whole continent. We cannot afford to repeat histories tragedies in the Middle East.
33
@Drspock
It will likely be repeated all over the world, whether anyone can afford it or not.
@Drspock I think the "Thirty Years War of the Middle East" has already started. Removing Saddam took the lid off of a bubbling pot of sectarian hatred. With the amount of blood that's been spilled, the cat's already out of the bag. I think it's naive to believe that there will be much any non-Muslim country will be able to do to heal this split.
I hate to buy into conspiracy theories. But the war in Iraq triggered such a rapid flare up of sectarian tensions, I seriously wonder whether some of its planners wanted this to happen. They were either planning on this happening or were utterly clueless about what they were doing.
2
@Drspock
Really too bad that we (and the rest of the world as a consequence) got thrown off track so badly in 1992. The first military foray into Iraq in 1991 under President H.W. Bush really went quite well. Saddam had violated UN sanctions by invading Kuwait. We and the world went in together, chased him out and restored Kuwait's sovereignty.
And then we all packed up our war toys and went home again! It was a truly splendid moment in world history!
Curses on Bush Jr.'s head for being gullible enough to follow the neo-cons' lead and invading again. Wish he'd asked his dad instead.
But perhaps we can get back that state of equilibrium again someday. We did it once.
1
The “great powers” have problems of their own and expecting them to provide the catalyst and resources to create harmony where it has never existed is delusional. The Sunni-Shia divide has been in place for more than a millennia and continues to this day. This can only be resolved by the two sides from within and not from without. This is not a sectarian conflict that can be settled with dollars and common sense but requires a monumental rethinking of religious values that have been set in stone since the seventh century. Good luck with that.
24
@John - It used to be that Sunni and Shia lived side by side with no conflict. Sunni and Shia intermarried, and many Muslims couldn't have told you what the difference was between the two sects. In most countries, Catholics and Protestants have lived side by side with little conflict, except for about 25 years in Northern Ireland. This is yet another case of the powers+that-be, or those who oppose them, creating conflict where none existed before, just to achieve political ends. We see the same deliberate sowing of divisions in the US by people who don't care if they destroy the country or civil society as long as they "win."
8
@John
It’s a conflict between two groups of religious racists and bigots. Why is it so hard to say? For a thousand years these groups can’t live with each other. That is pathetic. Both groups deserve condemnation, not a statement that, well that’s just the way it is.
"Specifically, instead of wantonly fueling geostrategic rivalries and inflaming Arab-Israeli tensions, the United States, together with other great powers, must help war-torn Muslim societies reconcile, heal and rebuild. Unless the United States does so, the Islamic State will remain a threat in the years to come."
This is worth repeating. We also need to help the region prepare for worsening climate, created largely by our use of their oil.
5
Very well written by Mr. Gerges. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. But the question is who will provide, create and feed a counternarrative to the misguided youths of the middle east .
Corruption in Iraq and the greed of Saudis does not leave many options for them to be provided with any such counternarrative.
16