Should the US put boots on the grounds in their attempts at defeating the Islamic state?
The humanitarian catastrophe created by Sunni jihadist rebels; publicised as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has necessitated a military intervention by the US. The extremist group aims to create a worldwide caliphate where Muslims will unite under Sharia Law and ‘’challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West’’ (Brandon, 2006). There has been much debate as to whether the US should authorize the use of military ground forces due to the atrocities against civilians and barbaric killings against soldiers and journalists. However this essay contends, that despite the actions perpetrated by this terrorist group, a war will not put an end to the caliphate, therefore the US should not seek to put boots on the ground in attempts at defeating the Islamic extremists.
It is right to say that the actions of jihadists cannot go unpunished, but the US putting boots on the ground will not defeat the Islamic state. If one understands the reason as to why the terrorists are obligated to what they do, then it is clear to acknowledge that a war will not stop them.
As globalization spreads and societies become increasingly interconnected, Muslims have a choice; accept western beliefs to better integrate or preserve their spiritual purity by rebelling (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, p. 371)
And this is why for many years, Muslims have fought through Jihad.
Differences in value structures make the deterrence of religious terrorism difficult if not impossible, as secular states cannot credibly threaten materially that which terrorist’s value spiritually (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2011, p. 372)
In the highly unlikely scenario where this course of action were to be a success, it would not last. I contend that in the long term, it will merely result in an even greater retaliation and even more hatred against the US. Whenever the US acts as a world police, it gives cause for terrorists to attack the West and is an endless cycle. Michael Morell, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current intelligence and national security expert for CBS News said:
If it looks like the U.S. influence in Iraq is increasing once again, the threat from ISIS could also rise. That’s one of the downsides of U.S. involvement. The more we visibly get involved in helping their government fight these guys, the more we become a target (Morell cited by Posel, 2014)
For instance, the execution of Saddam Hussein did not act as a deterrent to stop the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda from regrouping. Hence, there is no guarantee that going to war can eliminate every member associated with ISIS. These terrorists are motivated through religion to conduct terrorist acts and overthrow the current political structure and reform it in accordance to Sharia law. Therefore, putting boots on the ground will only be the start of a battle, but it will lead to a never-ending war, for the ability to compromise between the jihadi terrorists is beyond reach.
A peaceful solution may be the most desirable to many advocates, in particular religious figureheads, as opposed to combat. On the other hand, how can the US coalition try to reach a peaceful resolution when the leader of the IS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has already vowed that his soldiers “will fight until the last man” and that they are “divinely aided.” (Ali, 2014). IS has clearly expressed their objectives to expand their territory and will go to extreme lengths to claim it; most recently, taking over the northern town in Libya, Derna. Peter Newman, professor of security studies at King’s College London said
In places like Yemen, Libya, their intention is to get as many groups around the world to swear allegiance…It’s the ‘oil spill’ strategy. They form enclaves, then they grow and connect together. (Stephen, 2014)
It is argued that sooner or later ISIS will take control over Iraq, Syria, Libya, and many other Middle Eastern countries and create a regional hegemon that could be a potential threat to the world. It is incredibly difficult to reason with such tyrants and it is impossible to analyse whether sanctions on a terrorist organisation that run outside the law will be effective. Thus, some would argue that the US has a moral imperative to exterminate these perpetrators of evil and the only military force capable of putting an end to the Islamic states advances in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the US have already gone too far and further involvement could create a vicious uprising.
Sunnis in Syria, who make up three-quarters of the population, fume that only extremist Sunnis are being hit. As they see it, crimes by Shias—Mr. Assad’s regime is predominantly Alawite, an offshoot of Shia Islam—go unpunished (The Economist, 2014)
This has resulted in moderate Sunnis feeling they have no other choice but to defend themselves amongst the extremist groups. In 2011, Britain and the US decided to support the rebel groups in Syria, in an attempt generate regime change – but as we can see in this day, it has resulted in these very same rebels changing loyalties to the more ruthless terrorist organisations, ISIS and the al-Nusra front, the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria. For the past three years, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have supplied groups in Syria with billions of dollar’ worth of arms, enhancing their level of arsenals. There is always the uncertainty that rebels will defect to IS. This indicates that Obama’s strategy of sending troops to aid and arm Syrian rebels has backfired and created further turmoil.
America’s decision to hit jihadist groups other than IS has further splintered the fractious rebels. Some have defected to extremist groups, including IS and Jabhat al-Nusra (which is affiliated to al-Qaeda), convinced that America’s coalition is in effect an ally of Mr. Assad’s. Revelations that President Barack Obama promised not to attack the Assad regime in a secret letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader and Mr. Assad’s staunchest ally (The Economist, 2014)
One may argue that it is unfair that the Alawites are being protected when Assad’s regime have killed over 200,000 people whereas ISIS victims are in the thousands. Obama has exploited the resentful minorities (Alawites, Kurds, and Shiites) by sending US troops to train them and aid them with arms against the Sunni extremists. Why? I believe that the agreement with the undemocratic radicals is a cover to serve the selfish underlying interests of the US; profits for US arms companies and to increase power by gaining control of oil supplies in the Middle East. Despite this, I proclaim that the Islamic state are far worse on the basis of the malicious activities they have conducted and their inability to negotiate; in contrast to Assad where he handed over his chemical weapons after the sarin gas attack in Damascus last year. If the Syrian government fell, IS would likely gain power resulting in several executions of non-combatants and the persecution of anyone that does not announce allegiance to the caliphate. I contend that the US should not put boots on the ground to fight ISIS. Yes, their actions are irrational which urge for the US to take action, but to take further action and go into combat is impractical and unwinnable.
It is important to not forget about the casualties of the 2003-2011 Iraq war. Bush invaded in an act of retribution for the consequences of 9/11, which was ultimately, a strategic disaster. It was overall unpopular with the general public and achieved very little, apart from some arms company receiving a significant level of profits. It would be undesirable for the US to get involved in yet another Middle Eastern war. Major Powers such as Russia and China have opposed the United Nations Security Council resolution. Perhaps the US should take a note out of Chinas actions and do the same. On the other hand Hemmer (2007) argues that
The ‘’lessons of 9/11’’ are to remain hyper-vigilant to the possibility of terrorism and to disrupt and pre-empt attack before they come to fruition. (Hemmer cited by Rathbun, 2012, p. 209)
But there is no consensus between nations on a course of action to take. This brings up yet another existing problem as to why the US should not go to war with ISIS. How does counter terrorism justify curtailing human rights?
Terrorism seeks to provoke an over-reaction on the part of government…by adopting draconian measures, governments are invariably playing into the hands of terrorist groups, which are able to gain support and sympathy, and even increase recruitment…repressive measures that fail to eradicate a terrorist threat lead only to the adoption of still more repressive policies (Heywood, 2014, p. 307)
Every time a dictator is removed by the West it leads to an even worse situation. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak. After these anarchists were removed, those countries have been disintegrated, so how are citizens really benefiting when they’re freedoms are still restricted? One might suggest ISIS propaganda is incentivising the boots on the ground. The beheadings recorded have received high ratings and have created national outrage which rushes the US to take action. The US secretary of state, John Kerry says that ‘’attacks are slowing Isis advance but defeating Jihadis could take years’’ (Kerry cited by Black, 2014) I hope that US practices are not prompted by the media but legitimate reasons because the question as to whether the US should formally go to war against ISIS is very complex.
The current turmoil results not only from the centuries-old feud between Sunnis and Shias but from a revolt against very specific governmental policies — most of which have their origins in the U.S. invasion and occupation (Al-Gharbi, 2014)
To conclude, it is undeniable that human rights have been infringed but certain problems still exist. On the one hand, the US should not put boots on the ground because they have gotten involved in too many Middle Eastern conflicts which creates even more animosity against them which leads to an infinite cycle of vengeance from future generations. But on the other hand ISIS cannot go unpunished and the US is the greatest power that can assert its authority and use its military capability to defeat ISIS in the present-day. How can one justify the act of going to war when it impossible to measure the threat? By the size of the enemy? Number of people killed? Level of weapons available? The matter of fact is that the size of the threat does not justify an act of war, because any attempts at defeating the Islamic state through a war cannot fulfil the purpose of it. Going to war will not defeat the Islamic State as a threat is undoubtedly inevitable and henceforth the US should not put boots on the ground in attempts at defeating the Islamic State.

Bibliography
Al-Gharbi, M. (2014). The myth and reality of sectarianism in Iraq. Aljazeera. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/iraq-sectarianismshiassunniskurdsnourialmalaki.html
Ali, A. S. (2014, November 14). Baghdadi welcomes new pledges of IS allegiance. Lebanon: Al-monitor. Retrieved from Almonitor: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/11/baghdadi-speech-islamic-state-pledges-of-allegiance.html#
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2011). The Globalization of world politics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2011). The Globalization of World Politics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandon, J. (2006, May 10). The christian Science Monitor. The Caliphate: One nation, under Allah, with 1.5 billion Muslims.
Hemmer cited by Rathbun, B. C. (2012). Trust in International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heywood, A. (2014). Global Politics (2nd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kerry cited by Black, I. (2014, December 3). Kerry: attacks are slowing Isis advance but defeating jihadis could take years. Kerry: attacks are slowing Isis advance but defeating jihadis could take years. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/03/us-isis-iran-islamic-state
Morell cited by Posel, S. (2014). Why media talking head claim ISIS will attack US 9/11 style. occupycorporatism. Retrieved from http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/media-talking-heads-claim-isis-will-attack-us-911-style/
Stephen, C. (2014). US expresses fears as Isis takes control of northern Libyan town. Tunis: Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/06/us-fears-isis-nothern-libya-derna
The Economist. (2014, Novermber 8). Syria's war. Rapidly unravelling. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21631200-bashar-assads-impunity-undermining-fight-against-islamic-state-rapidly
The Economist. (2014, November 15). The war in Syria. Can hell be frozen over. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21632626-limited-un-ceasefire-plan-has-little-hope-success-can-hell-be-frozen-over