I have recently been asked what I thought about IS and about the response to IS proposed and made actionable by President Obama. I have written previously that I believe IS is a transnational actor and that I believe IS to be a revolutionary movement that desires to create a new country. Eventually the goal of IS is to move from being a country to, I believe, global domination in carrying out their particularl ideological understanding of the teachings of Islam. I also wrote in that earlier blog that determining the best means of fighting against IS is difficult.
Today I want to first readdress the issue of what type of action to take against IS. Secondly, what type of response should we expect from IS as a result of the chosen course of action by the U.S. government. Finally, does this expected action change what action to take against IS?
IS is a revolutionary group. This organization is transnational in its scope and position, presently operating in multiple countries. The intent of IS is to create a new country with the IS organization as the government of that country. IS leadership believes that their ideological view of Islam represents the truest conception of Islam, the practice of the faith, and the socio-economic and political structures that must exist if the truest conception and practice of Islam are acted upon and enforced (in the context of IS leader's conceptions, enforcement of socio-economic and political practice of Islamic life is required). Because of the ideological disposition of IS leadership, IS as an organization represents not just a threat to populations in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, but to populations in all countries in the world. IS represents a threat to the accepted international order (while this order may be found repulsive on many fronts, it is the status quo under which populations have grown and may continue to grow with minimal intrustion on the sovereignty of populations, through recognized governments, over their own territory).
The U.S. government, led by the Obama administration, has determined in executing the will of the U.S. population to engage actively in the pursuit of destroying IS. The course of action taken to date involves the use of military assets in tactical strikes against targets. The destruction of these targets, both human and non-human, is meant to physically deny access to structures, deny ability to control territory, and psychologically deny peace of mind to IS and IS leadership. The Obama administration has also determined to start arming moderate anti-Syrian government forces. This second action is questionable based on messages it sends and supplies it makes available to potential enemies of the U.S. population. But, given these courses of action what should we expect from IS?
IS leadership has told IS followers to atttack U.S. and French citizens according to an article I read today. In other words, IS leadership has told its followers to engage in acts of terror against the U.S., France, and others joining in the effort to destroy the IS. For my two cents this response is exactly what we should have expected. IS pictures itself as a state, as such if recognized by other states it would be an internationally legal equal. IS has not been recognized and so remains a non-state, transnational actor and not a legal equal. IS also does not possess the required forces to engage in direct military confrontation against the superior military forces of the U.S., France, Canada, Australia, etc. against which it has told its followers to rise up. When faced with asymmetry the choices of conflict behavior are limited and most of the choices will be easily categorized as acts of terror.
Should the U.S. government change the course of action it has chosen in response to IS statements and potential actions? The simple answer is no. If the U.S. government chooses to change its actions the choice should be based on questions raised about the usefulness and results of arming moderate rebels in their actions against the Syrian government. I always want people to realize that if the government chooses to take armed action against any population group, "We the people" must accept our role in the decision and our responsibility for the decision, because "We the people" elect our government--whether you as an individual voted for the current officers of government or not, collectively we bear responsibility for the actions of our elected government. If we disagree with the government decision or the likelihood of personally being targets as a result of government decisions, we should then work to remove the current officers of our government or to get those officers to reverse their course of action on our behalf. Finally, if you do not want to be a target, then never, ever, consent to allow your government to engage in militarized actions on behalf of policy meant to represent our aims as a population.
Today I want to first readdress the issue of what type of action to take against IS. Secondly, what type of response should we expect from IS as a result of the chosen course of action by the U.S. government. Finally, does this expected action change what action to take against IS?
IS is a revolutionary group. This organization is transnational in its scope and position, presently operating in multiple countries. The intent of IS is to create a new country with the IS organization as the government of that country. IS leadership believes that their ideological view of Islam represents the truest conception of Islam, the practice of the faith, and the socio-economic and political structures that must exist if the truest conception and practice of Islam are acted upon and enforced (in the context of IS leader's conceptions, enforcement of socio-economic and political practice of Islamic life is required). Because of the ideological disposition of IS leadership, IS as an organization represents not just a threat to populations in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, but to populations in all countries in the world. IS represents a threat to the accepted international order (while this order may be found repulsive on many fronts, it is the status quo under which populations have grown and may continue to grow with minimal intrustion on the sovereignty of populations, through recognized governments, over their own territory).
The U.S. government, led by the Obama administration, has determined in executing the will of the U.S. population to engage actively in the pursuit of destroying IS. The course of action taken to date involves the use of military assets in tactical strikes against targets. The destruction of these targets, both human and non-human, is meant to physically deny access to structures, deny ability to control territory, and psychologically deny peace of mind to IS and IS leadership. The Obama administration has also determined to start arming moderate anti-Syrian government forces. This second action is questionable based on messages it sends and supplies it makes available to potential enemies of the U.S. population. But, given these courses of action what should we expect from IS?
IS leadership has told IS followers to atttack U.S. and French citizens according to an article I read today. In other words, IS leadership has told its followers to engage in acts of terror against the U.S., France, and others joining in the effort to destroy the IS. For my two cents this response is exactly what we should have expected. IS pictures itself as a state, as such if recognized by other states it would be an internationally legal equal. IS has not been recognized and so remains a non-state, transnational actor and not a legal equal. IS also does not possess the required forces to engage in direct military confrontation against the superior military forces of the U.S., France, Canada, Australia, etc. against which it has told its followers to rise up. When faced with asymmetry the choices of conflict behavior are limited and most of the choices will be easily categorized as acts of terror.
Should the U.S. government change the course of action it has chosen in response to IS statements and potential actions? The simple answer is no. If the U.S. government chooses to change its actions the choice should be based on questions raised about the usefulness and results of arming moderate rebels in their actions against the Syrian government. I always want people to realize that if the government chooses to take armed action against any population group, "We the people" must accept our role in the decision and our responsibility for the decision, because "We the people" elect our government--whether you as an individual voted for the current officers of government or not, collectively we bear responsibility for the actions of our elected government. If we disagree with the government decision or the likelihood of personally being targets as a result of government decisions, we should then work to remove the current officers of our government or to get those officers to reverse their course of action on our behalf. Finally, if you do not want to be a target, then never, ever, consent to allow your government to engage in militarized actions on behalf of policy meant to represent our aims as a population.
No comments:
Post a Comment