Why Less Direct US Intervention with ISIL and More Middle Eastern Intervention is Key

United States intervention in the Middle East is nothing new. For decades the U.S. has participated and led military excursions into various countries throughout the region. Since the rise of ISIL, also known as Daesh or Islamic State, there have been increased pleas by politicians and media pundits to escalate US military presence and participation in the region. Recently the US military has begun launching targeted airstrikes within the region as well as taking a leadership role in the coalition opposing ISIL. By doing so the US is not making the region a more secure place but, rather, is building a framework for future regional and global instability.

During the Cold War the U.S. became involved in a proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. Although U.S. support for the Mujahedeen most certainly helped Afghans (and the foreign fighters associated with them) push back the Soviets, it also created massive instability and radicalization in the region, which allowed the Taliban to take control. Many of the weapons infused into the region by the U.S. were never returned. Although U.S. involvement may have achieved short-term and topical success, it created significantly more problems than it solved and led to far more instability and conflict than it ever prevented.

The U.S. role in the facilitation of arms into Syria to rebels fighting Assad has also proven to be, in many ways, a detriment to the region. In 2013 the U.S. began sending weapons into Syria as well as facilitating the delivery of ones from other Arab states. Due to the mercurial and fragmented nature of the opposition, reports have indicated that some weapons that were intended to be sent to the Free Syrian Army ended up in the hands of other radical Islamic groups. By getting further involved in the Syrian conflict the U.S. did not make the region a safer place, but rather contributed to the “dual contest” emerging among the rival factions in Syria. This is just another example of foolhardy U.S. intervention that not only failed in its purpose, but also created more instability than it alleviated. By infusing the region with more arms and weaponry, the U.S. military is only setting itself up for more problems in the future.

In no way should ISIL exist unchecked and resisted – their actions on the regional and global stage have proven that they lack any regard to human rights and basic liberties – but the U.S. military should not be the ones to take a lead role in intervening and stopping them. History has proven that by intervening, the U.S. will only create further instability and mistrust in the region with the strong possibility of creating unseen negative repercussions going forward. The U.S. should continue to bolster and publically support other local countries’ campaign(s) against ISIL, but should not add to the direct military incursion of the region. The goal of the U.S. should be to untangle itself from direct conflict and let a Middle Eastern-centered coalition either destroy the foundation of ISIL from direct regional military action, or allow the coalition to stop ISIL’s growth by containing it and letting it fall apart from within. Either way, the United States government needs to show the Middle East that it will no longer fight its battles for it. By doing so, public perception for the U.S. will increase and further destabilization of an already volatile region may be avoided.