Last month, my colleague Sawan Patel called on the United States to cease intervening militarily in the Arab world, arguing its current foreign policy denotes “a fundamental misunderstanding of… the nature of the conflicts occurring in Syria and Iraq” and strengthens extremist ideologies. I applaud Patel for taking the time to consider the ramifications of unchecked aggression in the Middle East, something Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) must not have contemplated before suggesting the United States bomb Iran’s nuclear program back to “day zero.” However, Patel’s argument is overly idealistic and does not acknowledge the political realities that influence U.S. foreign policy towards the Near East. In a region where autocrats’ intransigence has neglected the need to combat transnational terrorism, continued U.S. military intervention is necessary to defeat the Islamic State and other Salafist jihadist organizations such as Al-Qaeda.
Patel argues that U.S. military interventions create “negative feedback mechanisms” that promote public support for extremist ideologies. While they certainly increase anti-American sentiment, the rise of groups such as ISIS is primarily attributable to sectarian tensions, regional power rivalries and ineffective governance. This is especially evident in Iraq, where ISIS exploited Sunni contempt of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who attempted to arrest his political rivals; violently suppressed political demonstrations; and undermined amnesty programs that sought to incorporate former rival Sunni and Shia factions into the government. As long as Middle Eastern leaders continue to repress religious and ethnic minorities, extremist organizations will retain a fervent support base.
Second, Patel questions why U.S. policymakers should expect our Middle Eastern allies to lead the fight against Salafist jihadist organizations. This expectation is practical because both groups seek to overthrow the region’s existing national governments in order to create a modern Islamic caliphate. ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s commitment to achieving this goal is evident in the ongoing insurgencies in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. While the attacks in Paris and Brussels were devastating, ISIS poses a greater threat to peace and security in the Middle East, where many countries already possess the socioeconomic conditions necessary to sustain it.
Unfortunately, many Middle Eastern states lack the capacity or resolve to combat extremist organizations. In Yemen the national government has proven incapable of defeating domestic insurgents without foreign military assistance, which has prioritized combating an Iranian backed rebel group known as the Houthis instead of Al-Qaeda. Both King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have utilized jihadist organizations such as Jabhat al-Nusra (an Al-Qaeda affiliate) to aid in the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other actors have engaged in similarly reprehensible behavior. While officials in Moscow allege the Russian military is intervening in Syria to support the “Syrian armed forces in their fight against ISIL,” this claim appears disingenuous. Most Russian air strikes have occurred in western Syria, away from ISIS-controlled areas, suggesting that Moscow may be intervening for ulterior motives — perhaps to ensure the political survival of the Assad regime and preserve access to their naval base in Tartus.
These sorts of challenges require sustained U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. Indeed, a cessation of such action would empower extremist organizations. Countries such as Iraq, which rely on the United States for tactical and logistical support in counter-terrorism operations, would be deprived of the resources necessary to retake territory from ISIS and its affiliates. Meanwhile, terrorist leaders may interpret a cessation of U.S. military intervention in the region as a sign of weakness, proving that the latter lacks the resolve to fight prolonged insurgencies and increase attacks against the West and its allies. The United States must reconcile its desire to avoid these scenarios while distancing itself from issues that could further entrench it in the region’s intractable political disputes, such as enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria. Instead, the U.S. should continue to target ISIS controlled oil refineries, jam its communication devices and target its central leadership to undermine the latter’s ability to finance itself, communicate and execute attacks on foreign soil.
This is not to say that U.S.-Near East foreign policy should lack humanitarian ideals. The United States should make the continuation of foreign aid conditional upon the incorporation of ethnic and religious minorities into the political decision-making process and publicly encourage its allies to respect the rights of these groups. In the long term, such a policy could build inclusive political institutions that reduce public support for jihadist organizations and end an incessant cycle of suffering and warfare. However, in the short term, U.S. military intervention is needed to combat the greatest threat to peace and global security, Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Brandon Brooks is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.brooks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | YesterdayRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
