Obama's Foreign Policy and ISIS

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Look out, ISIS!


Who is ISIS, or the Islamic State as they now call themselves? Who do they represent? What do they stand for? How do they recruit followers when their views of the Islamic state and the world are against not only mainstream Islam but also the interests of most people in the Islamic world? Who supplies them with arms? And why is it necessary for the American and British governments to wade in when the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the region, who have the assets necessary to carry out humanitarian missions as well as military strikes, do nothing to save lives?

ISIS is an extremist group that follows al-Qaeda's hard-line ideology and adheres to global jihadist principles. It is anti-West, promotes religious violence and opposes with violence Muslims who do not agree with it. ISIS's skewered ideology aims to return to the early days of Islam, rejecting “corrupt interpretations.” It condemns caliphates for deviating from what it calls the pure Islam caliphate. ISIS believes that only a legitimate authority can undertake the leadership of jihad and that its first priority is the purification of Islamic society. The rhetoric of “purification” has sinister implications, as it has throughout history, for its assumption of legitimacy.

I have no idea who supplies ISIS with its weapons and who funds ISIS for this purpose. If only the source of funds and weapons could be traced, a solution to the problems created by ISIS looking forward may be available. If the source is cut off, how will ISIS arm itself? In June 2014, The Economist reported that "ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000–5,000 fighters in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya and perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe". These are not large numbers but I fear The Economist underestimates them.

A major weapon in ISIS's tactical armory is their control of strategic rivers, dams, and water installations. ISIS runs a soft-power program, which includes social services, religious lectures and proselytizing to local populations. It also performs civil tasks such as repairing roads and maintaining the electricity supply. Thus ISIS retains local popularity, at a price.

Why has ISIS received so little publicity until recently? I suppose genocide concentrates the mind of the media and the reported threats by ISIS against the Yazidis to convert to Islam or die makes good copy. The pictures from Mount Sinjar demonstrate the plight of the Yazidis and the serious humanitarian crisis caused by ISIS.

I cannot understand why it is not in the interests of the governments of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fight ISIS, who threaten to undermine and destroy these nations because they do not follow the version of Islam favored by ISIS. I understand that the governments named except Saudi have their internal troubles but is this reason to ignore the threats of ISIS?

I am no Middle East expert. I suspect ISIS and their venal message has been conveyed further than Iraq and Syria. Moderate Muslims in Afghanistan and Turkey must be worried about their futures. Is it in America’s and the West’s interests to take on this vile organization now? Churchill said that “jaw, jaw, jaw was preferable to war, war, war,” but who is there to talk to within ISIS? If no nation with a close interest in defeating jihadists, not to mention the United Nations, will take the strain, the choice for the West is limited. It is either rescue the refugees or let them die.

Surely, the humanitarian crisis, not only of the Yazidis but also the Kurds, deserves the focus of the United Nations. Sadly, this organization, yet again, lacks the moral fortitude, let alone political will, to deal with the problem. So far, the UN has sat on its hands. This is unacceptable.

So, the world leaves it to the Americans and British to take action. This week, Hillary Clinton, distancing herself from an unpopular president, criticized America’s foreign policy. No doubt this is a pre-cursor to Mrs Clinton’s run for the White House. Earlier this year, President Obama articulated a philosophy for avoiding dangerous entanglements overseas that was modest in its ambitions and focused on avoiding mistakes. “Don’t do stupid things,” he said. Mrs Clinton offered a blunt retort, telling an interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles — and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

She is right. It’s not a policy, it is a strategy and, with respect to Mrs. Clinton, it’s a sensible strategy. So why would Obama move away from the stated strategy and take swift action in Iraq, risking mission creep, not to mention more hatred from America’s enemies in the Middle East?

On the one hand, dropping some bombs on ISIS probably has done little damage but it sends a message that worse will follow if ISIS continues to make war on innocents. However, we all know that troops on the ground is necessary if ISIS are to be challenged and this would be stupid.

On the other hand, it is often helpful not to have a coherent and understood foreign policy. By introducing uncertainty, the President causes his country’s opponents to worry. They will be unable to predict how he will react in given circumstances. This gives him power.

I’m glad that Mr. Obama will be guided by the anti-stupidity principle. As for the humanitarian relief provided by America and Great Britain, what was Obama meant to do when others sat on their hands? I also hope his opponents in the region will be troubled by the uncertainty of America’s position. But most of all I applaud the President and David Cameron for taking action to save lives.