Will America take ISIS’ Bait?
There’s much debate among U.S politicians about whether American troops should be deployed on the ground in Syria, Iraq, and other ISIS strongholds. The debate is split primarily on party lines, with a slim majority of Democrats opposing the idea and a majority of Republicans in favor of deploying troops.
“I think we have to have a strategy and that entails American boots on the ground along with a coalition force.” -Senator John McCain (R)
Arizona Senator John McCain along with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham are two of the most vocal supporters of invading Iraq and Syria on a massive scale and claim the current bombing campaign is not enough on its own.
The opinions of these two senators are in stark contrast to most democrats such as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who believes deploying ground troops in the Middle East to fight ISIS should be, “ a last resort, not a first resort.”
The Atlantic writer Peter Beinart sides with Bernie Sanders on the issue in his recent article Why Attacking ISIS Won’t Make Americans Safer. Beinart looks back to recent history to make his argument on why the United States would be better off not getting involved in the current conflict in the Middle East and cites the examples of the First and Second Gulf War in the 1990's along with the Iraq war in the 2000's to make his case. He argues that the only reason terrorist groups in the Middle East despise America so strongly is because of our many invasions and bombing campaigns of their lands throughout the past few decades. He mentions a quote from a top al-Qaeda leader soon after the 9/11 attack that reads:
“ The latest and the greatest of these [Western] aggressions … is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places.”
During America’s invasion of Iraq between 2004 and 2010 terrorist attacks against the U.S and its allies were up 90% as compared to the time period of 1980–2003. It is no coincidence that after the U.S invaded Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people that they decided to take violent action against U.S troops as retaliation. This is not to say that such brutality is justified, it is just to help point out possible causes for their actions. Many U.S politicians such as Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio claim the main reason for terrorist attacks against the out country is “because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs … because we’re a tolerant society.” This rhetoric sounds good to your average American because it is an easy way to portray the actions of al-Qaeda and other Middle Eastern terrorists as acts of “jealousy” or “intolerance” without having to blame yourself for disrupting their way of life and trying to implement “democracy” in their countries through force. This belief is in contrast to what many terrorist group leaders claim as their reasons for their attacks, as seen in the cases of 9/11, ISIS bombings in Russia, and the most recent tragic Paris attacks, where the leaders of these terrorist groups explain their actions by claiming they are retaliation against unwanted Western intervention in the Middle East. In all three cases (Gulf War, Russian and French bombing of Syria) the terrorist retaliation that followed was not without significant instigation by the U.S, Russia, and France.
Italian economist and political theorist Daniele Archibugi argues in his book Can Democracy be Exported? that attempts to bring democracy to unwilling countries has historically been a failure. Recent cases like Iraq and Afghanistan show that it is not worth the money or loss of lives to try to force democracy on other countries. It is not just Republicans who try this failed method either. President Obama’s role in removing former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power and help in inciting the Syrian Civil War in 2011 is now seen my many as an abysmal failure and most likely created the void of power which led to the rise of the Islamic State.
Instead of debating whether the United States should be doing MORE to combat the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, politicians should consider the question “What caused all of this?” and try not to repeat the mistakes that were made in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even as far back as Vietnam. The aggressive dictator toppling and interventionist foreign policy of Republicans and Democrats alike has a very poor track record and it’s time to consider a new foreign policy plan. Yes, there is a humanitarian justification for an American invasion of Syria and Iraq to stop the Islamic State, but for politicians to claim this would make Americans safer at home is very misleading. It might be our job to fix the mistakes we made which helped lead to the genesis of ISIS, but the days of invading countries to topple dictators and promote democracy have done far more harm than good. To sum up the effectiveness of America’s Middle Eastern bombing campaigns and invasions in one picture, the popular American cartoon “SpongeBob SquarePants” does it very well.
