The Fight Against Daesh as a Sign of Global Governance at Work

The fight against Daesh has gone global. Nearly every modern nation has taken some form of action against the terrorist scourge, whether it be military, financial, or logistical support for one of the coalitions combating the terrorists.

While it seems every nation has a different idea to handle the Daesh situation, there is a shared sentiment – Daesh must go. (Unless you’re President Erdoğan of Turkey, then you just keep raking in that sweet, sweet oil money with your Daesh buddies*)

This universal conviction against Daesh is a sign of potential global governance at play. If we strip away the divisions of ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc – we end up with a simple “Us vs. Them” – those with Daesh, and those who oppose. Fortunately, the world is very much in the opposition camp.

Parties and states who have held long-standing rivalries with one another have the potential to unite and eradicate Daesh from the earth. Since 2014, the U.S. coalition and Iran have been bombarding Daesh in completely separate campaigns. Both have undertaken massive aerial campaigns against Daesh. The U.S. has sent in advisory troops and a plethora of special forces, while the Iranian government has mirrored this action with the deployment of their elite QUDS force into Iraq.

Imagine the strides that would take place should Iran and the U.S.-led coalition share intel.

The same goes for Russia and the United States. The two nations are in the same fight, with different goals. Russia wants to destroy Daesh to prop Assad’s regime back up, while the United States wants to destory Daesh to facilitate the “moderate” rebels’ ability to topple the troubled regime that is marred with accusations of human rights violations.

Imagine if all of these barriers, divisions, and bitter generation-hopping rivalries between nations fell by the wayside to take the Daesh plague on with full force. It’s fine with me if the rivalries return after, as long as Daesh is gone. That’s progress in my book.

*-“allegedly”

Margaret Moroney says:

February 9, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Alec-

This is a very interesting point and these nations should, in theory, definitely be working together to defeat a common enemy. Unfortunately, this analysis seems very idealistic. In terms of power politics and alliances, lots more is going on in the international and domestic spheres that prevent these alliances from cooperating. Russia, as allies of Syria and Iran, has a vested interested in defeating ISIS but also maintaing Assad’s regime, which the US wants to replace with a pro-American regime. Conversely the US, won’t cooperate with Iran while negotiations to reopen diplomatic relations are emerging. I don’t foresee cooperation since international actors conflict on the end result in Syria, which you outlined above, but also numerous other policies conflicting not just the end result in Syria. Even if these nations could work together to defeat ISIS, conflict may continue between these nations afterwards for dominance in influencing the government of Syria. Some scholars believe that the conflict in Syria is actually a proxy war between larger powers, which would prevent a coalition working together.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-11-12/how-proxy-wars-work