![]() No regional state’s interests dovetail precisely with those of the U.S. The new administration’s fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda intersects a tinderbox of wars and regional rivalries. Loosening rules and oversight designed to protect civilians, as has been suggested, would be a mistake. “Targeted” strikes that kill civilians and alienate communities, as appears to have been the case in the January Yemen raid and the 16 March strike in Syria’s Aleppo province, are counterproductive, regardless of immediate yield. Offensives against Mosul, Raqqa or elsewhere need to avoid destruction but also need plans to preserve gains, prevent reprisals, stabilise liberated cities and rebuild them as yet, no such plan for Raqqa seems to exist. Campaigns against jihadists hinge on winning over the population in which they operate. In particular, the new administration should avoid: So long as wars continue and chaos persists, jihadism will thrive, whatever ISIS’s immediate fate. can do only so much to reboot Arab politics, remake regional orders or repair cracked fault lines, but its counter-terrorism strategy cannot ignore the upheaval. Both movements grow when things fall apart, less because their ideology inspires wide appeal than by offering protection or firepower against enemies, rough law and order where no one else can or by occupying a vacuum and forcing communities to acquiesce. Though the roots of ISIS’s rise and al-Qaeda’s resurgence are complex and varied, the primary catalyst has been the turmoil across parts of the Muslim world. Its affiliates fight across numerous war zones in coalitions with other armed groups, its operatives are embedded in local militias, and it shows more pragmatic adaptability to local conditions. For many adherents, its allure was its territorial expansion with that gone, its leaders are struggling to redefine success. But ISIS is in retreat, its brand diminished. ![]() The threat it poses will evolve in its heartlands and elsewhere, as fighters disperse. Its decisive defeat is still a remote prospect while the Syrian war rages and Sunnis’ place in Iraqi politics is uncertain. Much of Mosul, its last urban stronghold in Iraq, has been recaptured Raqqa, its capital in Syria, is encircled. administration has inherited military campaigns that are eating deep into ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliphate. Most importantly, aggressive counter-terrorism operations should not inadvertently fuel other conflicts and deepen the disorder that both ISIS and al-Qaeda exploit. The risks include angering local populations whose support is critical, picking untimely or counter-productive fights and neglecting the vital role diplomacy and foreign aid must play in national security policy. His administration’s determination against groups that plot to kill Americans is understandable, but it should be careful when fighting jihadists not to play into their hands. Trump looks set to make counter-terrorism a centrepiece of his foreign policy. In pledging to destroy the Islamic State (ISIS), U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |