The Return of Containment? – PLSC 359: Global Governance

The Islamic State or ISIS is a growing concern for numerous international actors, now more so than ever as attacks are rising around the world. In order to manage the crisis in Syria, President Obama announced the US policy of counterterrorism efforts to thwart the organization’s success primarily dependent on airstrikes. Over the last few months following the announcement, no significant impact has been made in order to curb the group’s influence in the region, but instead as with the bombing of a plane leaving the Sinai Peninsula, attacks in Paris and now Brussels the threat of ISIS is mounting. Since the organization has no signs of a decline, it is evident that the counterterrorism efforts are failing, which can largely be attributed to the fact that ISIS is not just a terrorist organization and thus cannot be fought like one.

The common view that ISIS is a terrorist group holds true in some respects and this aspect of the group is gaining more prominence. Robert Pape, one of the foremost scholars on terrorism defines it as “the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear”. Much like traditional terrorist groups, ISIS utilizes a number of terroristic methods such as beheadings, suicide attacks and car bombs. In the last year, the group’s reach demonstrates its ability not only to coordinate attacks outside of its own territory, but to inspire attacks without the group’s backing or support.

Although the analysis is correct and important, terrorist tactics are only one facet of ISIS, which does more than inspire fear. Unlike traditional terrorist groups, ISIS controls territory and maintains an army, making it more than a terror group with greater organization and resources. With an area roughly the size of Jordan, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory, which no other terrorist organization has been able to do. The number one goal is not to instill fear or coerce a foreign government, but to establish its own Islamic state.

As of the latest estimates, ISIS maintains an army of 30,000 comprised of recruits from around the globe. With its technology and manpower, ISIS is able to confront legitimate armies and partake in a civil war, a feat that no terrorist organization accomplished before.

Gaining control of territory, ISIS implemented clear lines of authority, tax and education systems. The group manages utilities for the area it rules allowing a community to form under its supervision. The community also creates its own revenue through taxes and oil reserves to fund the organization, with estimates of racking in $2 million a day. No terrorist group in modern history financed its own functioning but instead rely mostly on donations.

The definition of ISIS has policy implications for the region and the globe. The United States claims that counterterrorism efforts will stop its expansion but in reality, these efforts are insufficient due to its multiple facets. The U.S. is using the same strategy it used to fight Al Qaeda despite the overwhelming differences in the organization.

Limited airstrikes against the group are insufficient and contribute to a flow of humanitarian issues. The approach proposed by Presidential candidate Ted Cruz to carpet-bomb Syria is uninformed and will be ineffective. Defeating ISIS rests on regaining its territory from the caliphate and the raison d’etre for ISIS rest on controlling territory. Containment needs to be the number one priority for the US and its allies. Although unpopular, sending troops from any country will be effective in curbing the spread of ISIS’s reach.

If ISIS can be confined, its end will most likely be internal since it lacks allies and controls poor, uninhabitable land. As a dynamic and multi faceted group, ISIS needs to be fought with a dynamic and multifaceted approach to its containment and subsequent demise.

Rohan Dalal says:

April 30, 2016 at 3:32 am

Some of your statistics are quite significant of the issue posed by terrorism in the past few decades. I was shocked at the escalation of the issue since the rise of IS. The manner of treatment for this issue, is symbolic to foreign policy. In that exclusionary tactics and isolation procedures will be needed, and will thus create tensions between cultures.
Middle Eastern nations need to understand the solution arises from an amalgamation of the East and West. They must fight this issue with the rest of the world and by pooling their resources, we can solve terrorism in a smooth manner

Daniel Connolly says:

April 30, 2016 at 9:12 pm

I completely agree with Maggie that the international community has severely underrated ISIS’ strength and capabilities. Government agents have estimated that ISIS made over two billion dollars in 2015, with that number increasing in 2016. The decision to launch airstrikes in the region was a step in the right direction, but so far the damage has been minimal. Due to the lack of resources on the ground, intelligence regarding potential ISIS targets has been limited and has caused misfires and civilian casualties. It is time that the international community respond appropriately to ISIS aggression, and prevent future attacks such as the ones in Brussels and Paris. I believe that boots on the ground are definitely necessary, and that a coalition of multiple nations should provide both soldiers and resources to the fight, it should not just be left to the United States and/or Russia to take control.