Stumbling Into a Wider War
It should come as no surprise that
the United States and its coalition partners are discussing widening the war
against the Islamic State beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. Wider wars have
become almost habitual in recent years, as military conflicts have expanded
with little public awareness or debate. President George W. Bush’s “war on
terror” began in Afghanistan, then moved to Iraq and elsewhere. Fourteen years
after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Obama is still deploying American troops
and weapons to fight Al Qaeda and other extremists in far-flung parts of the
world, including Pakistan.
The fight against the Islamic State
has focused largely on Iraq and Syria, where the group, also known as ISIS or
ISIL, has seized large swaths of land and established a firm presence. But some
regional members of the anti-ISIS coalition of more than 60 nations, according
to a report
in The Times, are now pressing the administration to carry the fight to other
terrorist groups that have declared themselves “provinces” of the Islamic
State.
In theory, that could involve the
United States and the coalition in Libya, where ISIS has sent a small number of
fighters to help organize militants. It could also mean moving against Ansar
Beit al-Maqdis, an ISIS-supported terrorist group in the Sinai Peninsula that
greatly worries Egypt. Intelligence officials estimate that ISIS may have as
many as 31,500 fighters in Syria and Iraq; at least a couple of hundred other
extremists in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other countries have also made
less formal pledges of support for ISIS.
It is essential that further
expansion of the campaign against ISIS and other militant groups be debated
rigorously and openly by Washington and its coalition partners. For one thing,
it is dangerous and unwise to assume that “affiliates” pledging support for
ISIS are controlled by ISIS, share its resources or can duplicate its ruthless
skills. Many cannot do so, and the coalition would make a serious mistake if it
treated all splinter groups as the same kind of threat.
In any case, the problem is far more
complicated than just going after ISIS and its affiliates. There are many
threats ravaging and destabilizing the Middle East, North Africa and Central
Asia, including not only extremistists (some allied with ISIS, many not) but
also stubborn, long-standing sectarian conflicts and, in some failed states
like Yemen and Libya, the near-total collapse of governmental authority and
civil order. That makes finding a coherent and effective strategy — or more
likely strategies — to deal with these challenges much harder.
What is manifestly clear is that
while America can and should play a leading role, the main responsibility for
confronting extremist groups and ending sectarian wars lies with countries in
the region, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. That will require them to put
aside enmities, cooperate and take on more of the fight. It will also require
many of them to make reforms at home, where radical ideology and repressive
governance foster extremism.
A Pentagon official played down the
possibility of an expanded war. But the fact that it is under discussion should
be of more than passing interest to a public grown tired of war. The spread of
extremism will be the focus of several meetings in the next few months,
including a summit meeting of Arab leaders called by President Obama for this
month and a meeting of coalition military commanders to be convened by the
United States Central Command.
No comments:
Post a Comment