Outline

Introduction: the need to implement antiISIS strategies for sustainable degradation and the need to follow the new rule of the International Law.

• S use looser rules in fighting ISIS and this prevents sustainable degradation of ISIS
• Iran as a director actor is facing tensions
• ISIS in Syria and Iraq
• Change of International Law
• Need considerable efforts to solve the underlying problems
• Anti-ISIS efforts will maximize protection and safety
• There is a need for diplomatic and military cooperation
• Nations should have an international agreement

Conclusion

 The U.S movement should understand the ISIS operations and implement anti-ISIS strategies to obliterate ISIS and more importantly follow the new rule of International Law in combating ISIS in State territory.

Introduction

 The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a jihadist terrorist group that led to the ‘worst humanitarian disaster’ and mass executions. To degrade and destroy the ISIS,  the United Stated  formed an international coalition and forced four-point plan which were based on  use of air strikes, support the local forces, increase the counterterrorism efforts and  to offer  humanitarian  assistance. However, there is a controversy in the international coalition since U.S and Iran exclude some international players who could offer divergent ideologies and address the challenges posed by ISIS. In addition, young people in Southeast Asia are joining the group or the rather the radicalization of young people into violent extremism is high due ideological and cognitive influence. AntiISIS strategies will solve all these challenges and more important they will maximize protection and safety. 

Overview

 In this podcast, the general idea is that the implemented plans to combat ISIS are not working effectively since the nature of ISIS is changing and there is a high growth of ISIS extremism. The government cannot have the power to fight back if it does not implement strategies for successful eradication. Thus, the governments as well the societies should not only create strategies which are military in nature but should also implement the antiISIS which needs long-term commitment[1].

ISIS was part the Baathist until the defeat of the army during the invasion of Iraq.  The invasion destroyed the Iraqi army in that members of the army could not participate in U.S government positions and due to this marginalization and subjugation, the Iraqi government established a rebellion and   created a new name ‘ISI’ or Islamic State of Iraq[2].  In 2012, Syria protested the Asadd regime and this led to civil war by 2014. The chaos gave ISIS an opportunity to attack the territory and it changed the name from ISI to ISIS.  ISIS attacked Syria gained financial and military resources which helped the army to attack Syria and Iraq.  Even though the group was empowered by intelligence and security forces of Saddam Hussein’s army, many foreign fighters from the Arab world empowered the group and influenced its military successes[3].  Being a strong group, its goal is to establish a caliphate and the group   imitates the Taliban’s rule since they implement repressive edicts in all religions where they have dominion.  It is also important to note that al-Qaeda disowned the ISIS in that the former aimed at attacking the Western region while ISIS’s interest was on Iraq and Syria.  ISIS and al-Nusra group had different aims   that lead to conflict[4].

 

Presentation

  The researchers find that ISIS pose a great threat to both Iran and Iraq and the strategy   that Iran believes can work best is by ‘leading from behind’[5]. This means that Iran will support Iraq with intelligence and weapons and more importantly empower the religion in maintaining   the national integrity and unity.  Iran is known as a sectarian actor not only in Syria but also in the Arab world.  However, Iran is facing challenges in that war events in Iraq affect Iraq due to lack of frontiers. Even though the aim of Iran involvement in Iraq is to combat the enemies and use Iraq as a national security, Iraq’s current borders will increase the regional instability and allow the ISIS to attack the region[6].

Ramakrishna (2017) asserts that the Al Qaeda ideological movement is a threat to the global security and the group has created a countercultural global movement by   forming four distinct dimensions or amorphous groups of people who have terrorism experience. The author states that Southeast Asian Muslims joins the ISIS or what is called ‘radicalization’[7]. He argues that   radicalization  into  ISIS is  a contemporary issue and the    majority of young people who join  ISIS are influenced by  ideological beliefs  that they are  extremists  and for this reason they tend to   form  a unique identity  and to defy the norms.  For example, Cornell, an American man  who  intended to  kill U.S lawmakers argued that  US  army and its allies  oppresses Muslims  and target innocent Muslims[8]. This show that extremism in Southereast Asia is influenced by the ideology that   they use force to maintain political power and thus,   extremists are not harmless but they express violent potentials to fight terrorism.

Implications of the argument

  The Iran’s strategy ‘leading from behind’ need to change sink it will engender its resources distribution as well as economic situation.  In other words, Iran should consider seeking help from the western coalition where it will gain military power[9]. Since the IraI-raq war, Iran  has not been involved  in a war and this means that  there it has a shortage of  resources and war  strategies and its effort in increasing military involvement and ground boots will result to  unbearable burden.  This means that since Tehran is an active participant in founding the ISIS, there should be complementary roles where Iran will offer ground operation and other allies will opera with airstrikes[10]. Iran will also offer technical and financial support in fighting the ISIS.

 The research done by Ramakrishna (2017) offers a solution to the rising tide of Southeast Asia extremists and asserts that there should be strategic and operational efforts. At the strategic level, it is the role of the government to challenge all extremism or rather prevents extremism by distinguishing extremists and non-extremists and helps the nonviolent group Islamist extremists in protecting the nation[11].  In addition, the government should censure extremists especially the Islamists who penetrate in the British University campuses and the university should guard free speech and make sure the extremists do not give toxic message to the audience.  In other words, extremists should not be allowed o exploit and radicalize young people via the social media. The government should consider attitudinal and behavioral indicators and they can also use ‘linguistic makers’ to find out online extremism plan for violent acts[12].

In 2014, the ISIS attacked a large part of the Syria and Iraq territory and posed a great threat in these regions.  The United State  together with  allies from Western and Arab countries  planned on how to attack the ISIS but the cooperation led to controversy  in that  the Iraqi government  wanted to use foreign military action, the Syrian government  objected   and argued that  the air strikes  could violate the international law while U.S argued that the airstrikes  was effective for humanitarian intervention  and to protect the territory  especially where the government is unable to  combat the  ISIS[13].   The legal rationale  was established  on 2014  when  the  U.S Permanent Representative  sent  a letter to the UN and argued that  ISIS use safe havens in Syria to attack  Iraq borders  and  the  region asks for  international efforts  to combat the ISIS, aid the Iraqi forces  in  controlling the borders and more importantly protect the Iraqi citizens[14]. 

The International Court of Justice disputes the U.S argument by asserting that a State violates the international law by attacking the non-state actors especially when the terrorism is not on territorial State. On territorial State, the region has a right for sovereign equality and international relations since   a state might lack power to combat the terrorists[15]. The Bush Doctrine also condemn the  nations involved in  attacking terrorisms  in other nations  by asserting that  according to the international law,  nations need to have self-defense before the occurrence of an attack. However, even though a state can take a self-defense, the terrorists use weapons which are concealed without warning and this means that    a nation may take anticipatory actions and suffer from mass destruction[16]. This raises an argument that the role of U.S is not to offer defense for emerging threats but its role is to attack the terrorist when the matter is at hand.

 

            Given that there is controversy on the violation of international law, the Obama administration relies on the doctrine ‘unable and willing’[17]. In addition, U.S has a self-defense and use force to attack the terrorists and in the process, it fights for the whole world.  In addition, due to the ongoing armed conflict, the international law allows U.S to use force against al-Qaeda group.  U.S can also target non-state actors under considerable condition such as imminence of threat and the willingness and ability of the State to combat the actors[18].  U.S  argue that  its forcible response complies with  jus in bello  and it ensures that in attacking the terrorists,  the armed force  should not focus on military objectives, they should not  make the civilian object as the  object of the attack and the attack  should not  affect  the civilian life.

 The debate comes into conclusion that according to the international law, force against terrorism is allowed if the attacked nation is unable to combat the terrorism. The use of force will maximize the possibility of abuse and an important point to consider is that State that use force should target the non-state actors and the military actions must avoid discrimination or rather it should meet the criteria[19].  Given the legal rustication of Obama administration and its doctrine ‘unable and unwilling’, Trump administration has similar plans in attacking the terrorists. This is because, Trump administration has created a comprehensive plan which is based on use of U.S forces to attack ISIS in Raqqa, Syria and Iraq.  It also focuses on cooperation with Kurdish forces and Turkish forces[20]. These plans align with anti-ISIS developed by Obama administration and the use of anti-ISIS strategy will create a safe zone in Syria and Iraq.

 

 

 

Personal implication

On addition to the above implications, I would like to suggest that U.S previous plans to fight the ISIS still are not fully effective since the newcomers in ISIS have strong allies capable of destroying the nations. Thus, U.S should form ISIS strategies which include intensifying efforts such as working with Anonymous in tacking the ISIS’s plans.  In addition, U.S should create a group of Muslim leaders who will offer a sustainable solution.

Summary and conclusion

Realistically, the nature of ISIS is changing and it has more power to attack the territories.  Thus, the government as well the society should focus on the anti-ISIS coalition to fight ISIS. More importantly, the governments should censure all extremism and focus on counterinsurgency strategy and this will maximize protection and safety. On addition, States should adhere to the doctrines of the International Law when combating terrorism in State terrorism. This will help states create self-defense and maximize the possibility of abuse.

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

ESFANDIARY, DINA, and ARIANE TABATABAI. "Iran's ISIS policy." International Affairs 91, no. 1 (January

2015): 1-15. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018).

 

Ramakrishna, Kumar. 2017. "The Growth of ISIS Extremism in Southeast Asia: Its Ideological and

Cognitive Features--and Possible Policy Responses." New England Journal Of Public Policy 29, no.

1: 1-22. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018).

 

Scharf P. Michael. How the War Against ISIS Changed International Law. CaseWesternReserve Journalof

InternationalLaw 48 (2016)

 

 

[1] ESFANDIARY, DINA, and ARIANE TABATABAI. "Iran's ISIS policy." International Affairs 91, no. 1 (January

2015): 1-15. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018). Pg 1

 

[2] Scharf P. Michael. How the War Against ISIS Changed International Law. CaseWesternReserve Journalof InternationalLaw 48 (2016). Pg 6

 

 

[3] Ibid, 6

[4] Ibid, 6

[5] Ibid, 14

[6] Ibid, 14

[7] Ramakrishna, Kumar. 2017. "The Growth of ISIS Extremism in Southeast Asia: Its Ideological and

Cognitive Features--and Possible Policy Responses." New England Journal Of Public Policy 29, no.

1: 1-22. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018). Pg 3

 

[8] Ibid, 8

[9] ESFANDIARY, DINA, and ARIANE TABATABAI. "Iran's ISIS policy." International Affairs 91, no. 1 (January

2015): 1-15. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018). Pg 8

 

[10] Ibid 9

[11] Cognitive Features--and Possible Policy Responses." New England Journal Of Public Policy 29, no. 1: 1-22. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 25, 2018). Pg, 14

 

[12] Ibid, 15

[13]Ibid, 2

[14] Ibid, 3

[15] Ibid, 32

[16] Ibid, 32

[17] Ibid, 43

[18] Ibid, 43

[19] Ibid, 52

[20] Ibid, 52