Daily Times

It sounds like déjà vu. President Obama, who has been a profound critic of his predecessor president George W Bush’s policies of using military force against other countries, has recently announced going after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a new militant organisation in the Middle East. There is a difference, however, this time. While his predecessor invaded Iraq by sending troops on the ground, Obama has announced several steps against ISIS with a determination to “degrade and destroy” comparatively a new enemy in the region instead of using ground forces.

Obama intends to do it working with a coalition of 10 Arab nations, excluding Iran and Syria, by launching airstrikes in Syria and Iraq and strengthening the Iraqi military with the assistance of US troops in an advisory capacity. The US will also support moderate paramilitary forces in Syria, take steps against militants in the region and provide humanitarian assistance to minorities including Muslims and Christians in Iraq who have been the target of ISIS brutalities.

The new rhetoric is a response to ISIS, a group that has recently killed three journalists brutally, two from the US and one from the UK. The new strategy with a predominant focus on airstrikes, however, is hardly new since the US has been bombing Iraq for some time. In fact, Obama has become the fourth US president who has been bombing the country consistently. Bush or Obama, the overall policy seems to end up with little impact in achieving its objectives. While Bush was overly aggressive by occupying countries directly, Obama is very cautious about using armed forces on the ground. For both, using military power seems to be the only option to destroy terrorism, which has never proved to be effective in restraining militancy in the Middle East or Afghanistan.

Instead of depending on military force repeatedly without formidable results, the US administration might look at the broader picture to eradicate terrorism and extremism in the region. Middle Eastern societies have a large population of youth who are unemployed and frustrated. In the absence of political and economic outlets, they are desperately in search of their identities in a sociocultural and political environment that fails to address their needs and ignores utilising their skills and knowledge.

When this large population does not find a place in society, it looks for alternative ways to seek a proper outlet and sometimes takes refuge in extremist groups only to be indoctrinated against internal and external enemies who they think are responsible for all of their problems. When the youth sees a foreign power invading their geographical space, it further reinforces their ideological commitments. There is a need to pay attention to this large youthful population in society and focus on making them a productive part of the same society through education, employment and economic opportunities.

A more important and largely ignored root cause of growing extremism lies in the political economy of terrorism in the Middle East. The real question is: who is financing ISIS, al Qaeda and other similar groups in the region? These militants have been fighting proxy wars for their sponsoring countries and groups who provide not only financial resources but also supply weapons and technical assistance to make them an effective fighting machine. History tells us, however, that the same groups conceived by regional or world powers ultimately become monsters and pose a threat to the whole region. The well-equipped ISIS that is armed with modern tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles and sophisticated weaponry obviously has been supported by some Arab nations against the Syrian regime of Assad.

The current US strategy of weakening the proxy group of ISIS terribly fails to address the economic support, technical assistance, arms supply and military training the group is receiving from regional powers. Ignoring real political dynamics and bombing ISIS bases might temporarily weaken the organization but it will not prevent the growth of more militant groups or even the revival of ISIS with a new outfit in the region.

The planned US strikes without a long-term strategy will also unite terrorist organisations in Syria and other countries that have been fighting in isolation from each other and sometimes against other fighters. Terrorism, instead of being curbed, will gain more support from the masses in the wake of airstrikes by an external power they do not trust.

Iraq is another example of misguided US policies of intervention. When Obama pulled out his troops from the country, the US had trained and prepared a huge national army with the expectation that they would have the capability of facing terrorism. This did not prove to be the case when Iraqi armed forces suffered a shameful defeat at the hands of ISIS. Besides addressing the growing public pressure in the US government to take action against ISIS and weakening the organisation for the time being through airstrikes, the new US strategy offers little to uproot terrorism in a highly volatile region where inter- and intra-state feuding already poses serious challenges in establishing a durable peace.

With the good intention of eliminating militancy, the new US offensive against ISIS seems to be a tested and failed strategy packed in new rhetoric and misguided solutions for a very complex conflict. Some say it is nothing but new wine in old bottles.

The writer is a university administrator, media consultant, political analyst and writer based in Maryland, US. He can be reached at qaabbas@gmail.com