Dealing With ISIL: Learning From Past Mistakes
Last week the nation of France fell victim to one of the worst terror attacks it’s faced this century. So far one hundred and thirty people are dead with more than two hundred left injured. ISIL has claimed responsibility for the attack and cold blooded murder of the people of Paris that night. With the world in a more vulnerable state then it was in prior years, this should lead our leaders to rethink their policies towards ISIL. Somehow, even though ISIL may have proved itself a more threatening opponent than once thought, foreign policy towards them is still mild in comparison to the crimes they have committed and threat to commit.
In 2003, without condemning evidence, the united states engaged in a full scale war against the nation of Iraq under the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. ISIL has not only taken over parts of Syria but now has taken over a large portion of Iraq, and unlike Iraq’s former leader Sadam Hussien, these people have unabashedly promised aggression against the United States and her allies in the years to come. Why then will the United States go to war on a mere suspicion of a threat and not on a threats which are promised? Despite our national security and despite the fact that we are responsible for forming this group the United States’ policy towards ISIL remains weak.
Currently, the United States strategy against ISIL consists largely of airstrikes and arming groups who share ISIL as a common enemy. While these can be very affective at severely injuring ISIL it by no means is capable of destroying it. On the contrary, it might make problems even worse for the US. We all have seen how arming non US military personnel has worked in the past, leading to newer and bigger enemies, such as it did with the original jihadists.
The actions of ISIL eerily resemble the actions of Germany before and during WWII and our government is now filling the shoes of Chamberlain. In all truth, the 85 million lives which were lost in WWII could have been easily saved by an early intervention and we are making the same mistakes over again. Chamberlain’s reasoning for appeasement was because Europe was still recovering from WWI, just as the United States is still recovering from our previous wars in the Middle East. Had Europe stopped Germany before they developed their military or immediately after they began to invade neighboring countries, then the whole war could have ended there. But due to their hesitance to act, an easy fix soon became a hard one and millions died.
The western world today seems to think that ISIL doesn't actually mean it when they say they want to take over the world and force sharia law upon the population. These people are motivated by their religion and a lust for blood. Their lives are a disposable commodity and to throw it away to take another down with them is considered noble. ISIL won’t stop once it has the Middle East, they will eventually move their sights to Europe and the rest of the world.
The call for war against these tyrants are not simply the cries of war hawks, it is the warnings of people who have learned from their ancestors mistakes. Not taking care of ISIL now while they are still manageable may lead to more deaths in the end. As we stand now, ISIL is a threat that if the US were to use all of its military capabilities, would be destroyed within a few months. The Islamic State is an infected wound upon the Middle East and if we leave that infection to fester and spread we may loose the whole region.