ISIS: How to Defeat Terrorism Without War

June 29th 2014 was the day that saw the rebranding of the terrorist group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant), to the all too familiar acronym ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

With the rebranding of their name, came a rebranding of their apparent aims. No longer was the Islamic State intent on capturing Iraq, and the whole of the Levant, a region which contained the countries Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine; instead the Islamic State wished to focus its efforts on the countries of Iraq and Syria.

The question is why would the Islamic State suddenly change its aims? To understand their decision, it is necessary to investigate the political situation of both Iraq and Syria.

Iraq is a country that has always been at the forefront of the Islamic State’s plans. Before 2013 ISIL had been known as ISI (Islamic State of Iraq). After the last of the US troops finally left Iraq on December 18th 2011, after what can only be described as the disastrous war that left 162,333 people dead; 114,212 of which came from civilian casualties (Rogers, 2012), the shaky Iraq government that the US and Britain led coalition left behind was always going to be a vulnerable target for opposing forces wishing to take advantage of the coalitions absence.

Like Iraq, the capture of Syria had also been one of the main aims of the Islamic State. However rather than seeing the capture of Syria as a piece of the puzzle that is the Levant, the Islamic State has turned its attention away from the other countries; instead focusing its efforts on the country which is in the process of being torn apart during a bloody civil war.

Following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in spring 2011, government forces following President Assad have used whatever means at their disposal to defeat the civilian rebels; with reports surfacing of a chemical weapon strike in Ein Tarma and the surrounding area on August 21st 2013,.

Eventually, following the final warning of the United States Foreign Minister, John Kerry, that the only way to avoid US involvement in the Syrian civil war was for President Assad to “turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community [within] the next week”, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov contacted his Syrian counterpart who convinced President Assad to agree to Kerry’s demand.

ISIS
Image source: huffpost.com

Even as Assad gave up the government’s stockpile of chemical weapons to the UN, the Civil War continued, revealing President Assad’s determination to continue the war until complete victory was assured; even in the face of extreme global pressure for a ceasefire.

It appears that the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has learnt a valuable lesson from the failings of both Napoleon and the Hitler, that stretching your army by fighting on too many fronts inevitably brings defeat. ISIS appears to have chosen Iraq and Syria because these two countries appear weak, with both governments in power struggling to maintain the support of their people. To take on Iraq and the entire Levant at the same time would leave ISIS fighting a war with at least six different countries, a situation it would be extremely difficult to win, as one of those countries involved would be Israel, who would have the support of the United States both financially and militarily. Therefore, by choosing to focus all of their efforts on Iraq and Syria, ISIS have dramatically improved their chances of victory, and if that victory is finally achieved, then it is logical to assume that ISIS will then use their vast territory as a base for their fight against the other Levant states.

However, taking over both Iraq and Syria was never going to be easy, even with both countries being in a fragile state politically, economically and militarily. In their effort to take control of both countries, the world has witnessed ISIS conducted abhorrent acts against its declared enemies.

Apart from the beheadings of its unarmed journalist prisoners that amounted to 61 dead in 2014 alone, ISIS also carried out attacks on the Shi’a people it encountered in both countries, many being innocent civilians. A way in which Baghdadi attempted to justify the groups actions was to announce that they were in a religious war against all unbelievers of the Sunni faith. On June 29th 2014, in addition to changing the name of ISIL to ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi also declared himself Caliphate: a role with both great historical and religious importance.

Following the death of Muhammad in 632AD, the position of caliphate has “led to the division of Muslims into two major branches- Sunni (85% of all Muslims) and Shii (15%)” (Esposito, 2011, p. 43). The division arose because Muhammad had died without naming a successor, causing two opposing theories as to who should be given the title Caliphate, which translates to the “deputy of God on Earth” (Kennedy, 2008) and therefore the spiritual leader of the Islam on Earth.

The Sunni believed that the most qualified person should be chosen as Caliphate, whilst the Shia believed that the title should be hereditary and therefore pass down to Muhammad’s son in-law, Ali. Eventually, the Sunni’s demand for a qualified Caliph overpowered the Shi’a’s opposition, resulting in Abu Bakr, who was one of Muhammad’s earliest disciples, being elected as Caliphate. However, tension between the two branches of Islam continued to grow as the Shi’a rejected Abu Bakr as Caliph. Finally in 656AD, after twenty four years, the Shi’a finally had their choice of Caliphate as Muhammad’s son in-law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib was finally elected Caliphate.

The reign of Ali Ibn Abi Talib was not a peaceful one as  Mu’awiya, the governor of what is now Syria, refused to acknowledge Ali as Caliphate. The two men finally met in 657AD an armed confrontation at Siff’in, an area on the border between modern day Syria and Iraq. Although the battle did not come to a decisive victory for either side, it does show the growing resentment between the Sunni and Shia people, which intensified with the assassination of Ali in 661AD.

Over the following centuries, the role of Caliphate endured, and with it, the animosity held between the Shia and Sunni for each other. It wasn’t until the Ottoman Emperor Murad I declared himself Caliphate in 1362, that the Muslim community finally gained stability, as the Empire held an unbroken line of Caliph’s from Murad’s coronation, until 1924.

The reasons for the abrupt end of the Ottoman Caliphate originated in the Empires declaration of war against the Russian Empire on November 1st 1914, which brought the Empire into the First World War as an ally of the central powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. After four years of fierce fighting, the central powers lost the war to the allies, and to the victors went the spoils.

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles inflicted huge fines upon Germany, as well as other harsh conditions, as the allies sought to place all blame for the war on Germany’s shoulders, and with it, the astronomical debt incurred by the allies.

The fate of the Ottoman Empire however, was already mapped out in 1916 during the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which set out out the division of the Ottoman Empire between Britain, France and Russia.

The Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman empire. Image source: britannica.com

However it wasn’t until the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that the Allies formally partitioned all non-Turkish land in the Ottoman Empire. The two main benefactors of the Treaty of Sevres were France and Britain, with France receiving Syria and Lebanon, whilst Britain received their mandate of control over Iraq and Palestine. Control of Turkey was granted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly following the Turkish War of Independence 1919-23. On October 29th 1923, the Turkish Grand National Assembly declared Turkey a republic.

The partition of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies had little importance in the Muslim world, compared to the safety of the Caliphate, who was the Sultan of the Empire, and who still resided in the Empire’s capital of Constantinople; located in the newly formed republic of Turkey.

Fearing that the Allies and National Assembly would execute the Caliphate, a pan-Islamic movement began in 1919 called the Khilafat Movement, with the sole aim of securing the safety of the Caliphate. It found support as far away as India, where for a time it united the Muslim League with the Indian National Congress, of which Gandhi was a prominent figure.

The Khilafat movement was short lived, lasting until 1924, when Mustafa Kemal, who was the head of the newly created Turkish Republic, announced that the Caliphate was “no more than an historic relic” and claimed that the position “has no justification for existence” and abolished the position on March 3rd 1924.

It was with the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, which marked the turning point in relations between the Middle East and West.

Without a figurehead, the predominately Muslim people of the Middle East lost the unison and safety they received under the Ottoman Caliphate. The historian James Spencer writes that “when the Caliphate was abolished, [people] believe that the Middle East’s temporal prestige declined” (Spencer, 2013, p. 235). This quote can be seen as a refection of the growing stigmata attached to the Muslim religion by American and European media, where “Arabs and Muslims have been singled out as objects of prejudice, revulsion and despise” (Aman). In addition to the negative portrayal of Muslims in Western media, several major wars have also been fought by America and the European powers against unequal Middle Eastern opponents, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which has caused growing hatred between the people of the West and The Middle East. James Spencer writes how “many [people] in the Middle East hark back to the days when they were taken seriously, to the days of the Ottoman Empire”.

ISIS
Image source: huffpost.com

Therefore by declaring himself Caliphate, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has tried to gain the support of the disillusioned Muslims, who seek the respect that their ancestors received during the days of the Ottoman Empire. The question is, would the terrorist group ISIS would have still been created if the Turkish National Assembly had of allowed the position of caliphate to continue, regardless of the state of the Ottoman Empire?

It could be argued that if the position of the Ottoman Caliphate had been allowed to continue, then the pan- Islamic world would have had a figurehead with which to associate with; allowing greater unity amongst The Middle East, which could have retained the respect of the West, something many people felt that they lost following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

By keeping the respect of the West, unnecessary wars, such as the 2003 Iraq War, could have been avoided, which would have meant a more stable Middle East. If the Middle East had greater stability the likelihood of terrorist groups like ISIS finding a following would have been greatly reduced.

The West should remember the rich history of The Middle East, and take heed of the calls asking for respect from its inhabitants, as this would no doubt improve the strained relationship between the two regions. Only once a strong and united relationship exists between the Western powers and The Middle East, can the world finally hope to see the decline and eventual end of terrorist groups such as ISIS, as the stream of disillusioned civilians; volunteering to fill their ranks, dries up, as stability spreads throughout The Middle East.

Some of the coverage you find on Cultured Vultures contains affiliate links, which provide us with small commissions based on purchases made from visiting our site. We cover gaming news, movie reviews, wrestling and much more.