The attacks in Paris by individuals associated with the Islamic State (IS) group, coming on the heels of bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, reinforce a reality that threat of terrorism has entered a new and even more dangerous phase.
Just why the Islamic State group decided to stage its attacks now is a matter for conjecture; it might be that it is going global to compensate for its recent loss of territory in Iraq. However, whatever the rationale, a clear response is warranted.
Actually, the challenge posed by the militant group calls for several responses, as there is no single policy that promises to be sufficient. Multiple efforts are needed in multiple domains.
One is military. More intense attacks from the air against Islamic State military assets, oil and gas facilities, and leaders is critical. However, no amount of air power on its own would ever get the job done. A substantial ground component is needed if territory is to be taken and held.
Unfortunately, there is no time to build a partner force on the ground from scratch. This has been tried and failed, and Arab states are unable or unwilling to constitute one. The Iraqi Army has also come up short, while Iran-backed militias only make matters worse.
The best option is to work more closely with Kurdish troops and select Sunni tribes in both Iraq and Syria. This means providing intelligence and arms, and being willing to send more soldiers — more than the 3,500 US military personnel already there, and possibly on the order of 10,000 — to train, advise and help direct a military response.
Such an effort must be collective. It can be informal — a “coalition of the willing” that would include the US, France, the UK, Arab states and even Russia under the right circumstances — or carried out under NATO or UN auspices. The packaging matters less than the results. However, symbolic declarations of war ought to be considered with caution, lest the Islamic State group appears to be winning every day it does not lose.
A diplomatic component is no less essential to any response. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a recruiting tool for the Islamic State group and must go. However, any successor government must be able to maintain order and not permit the militant group to exploit a power vacuum, as it has done in Libya.
Moreover, orderly political change can be brought about only with Russian and Iranian support. One near-term option worth exploring is a Syrian coalition government still headed by a representative of the Alawite minority, a concession that could be the price of moving al-Assad out of power. In principle, and over time, a more representative national government could come about, although talk of holding elections in 18 months is fanciful under any scenario.
However, reaching a compromise along these lines could be impossible. This is why increased military effort is needed to bring about larger and more secure enclaves that could better protect civilians and take the fight to the Islamic State group. Syria is not a normal nation in any sense, and it is unlikely to be for a long time, if ever. A Syria of enclaves or cantons is a more realistic model for the foreseeable future.
Other indispensable elements of any effective strategy include expanded help for, or pressure on, Turkey to do much more to stem the flow of recruits to the Islamic State group. In addition, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon need more financial assistance as they shoulder the bulk of the refugee burden. Arab and Muslim leaders can do their part by speaking out to challenge the Islamic State group’s vision and delegitimize its behavior.
There is also a domestic dimension to policy. The US Department of Homeland Security and US law enforcement must adjust to the increased threat by increasing protection both at borders and within them. Retail terrorists — individuals or small groups carrying out armed attacks against soft targets in open societies — are extremely difficult to deal with. The threat and the reality of attacks is to require greater social resilience and quite possibly a rebalancing of individual privacy and collective security.
What is also required is a dose of realism. The struggle against the Islamic State group is not a conventional war. It cannot be eradicated or destroyed any time soon, as it is as much a network and an idea as it is an organization and a de facto state that controls territory and resources.
Indeed, terrorism is set to continue being one of the scourges of this era. However, the good news is that the threat posed by the Islamic State group to the Middle East and the rest of the world can be dramatically reduced through sustained, concerted action. The main lesson of the attack on Paris is that we must be prepared to act over time and place alike.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder
Former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) used to push for reforms to protect Taiwan by adopting the “three noes” policy as well as “Taiwanization.” Later, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) wished to save the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by pushing for the party’s “localization,” hoping to compete with homegrown political parties as a pro-Taiwan KMT. However, the present-day members of the KMT do not know what they are talking about, and do not heed the two former presidents’ words, so the party has suffered a third consecutive defeat in the January presidential election. Soon after gaining power with the help of the KMT’s