ISILationism, Part 3: Eventual Endgame or Endless Games?

May 21, 2015
3 mins read

In case you missed it be sure to check out the first and second part of the series, ISILationism, Part 1 and ISILationism, Part 2!

A question that must be asked when confronting Fundamental Islam is: where and when have terrorism and insurgencies faltered, ultimately failed, and reached complete fallout? The answer, as should be known, is: nowhere and not yet!

Salafi Jihadism, under the guise of some newly emerged radical Islam, has been an overt force in the world since the beginning of our current millennium, with no tangible sign for the hopeful demise of its existence. Al-Qaida rose from obscurity after the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York City to a globally renown, expertly organized network promoting the destruction of the “far enemies” in order to universally advent Sharia Law. This organization, however, has diminished in power and overall capabilities through the relentless strategies and countermeasures conducted by the United States to successfully subvert Al-Qaida. With the conclusion of military operations in Iraq officially declared and executed in 2011, a lessening concern for Afghanistan has also increased among public policy and public opinion in America. Additionally, the multinational forces have grown battle-weary and the exhaustive, perpetual struggles with the Near East’s intolerance for democratic implementation bear no eventual reward. Both conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have met a kind of standstill at the edge of maddening continuity, where the only true dissolution of war rests in the authority of executive decisions to simply enact them.

Within this pervading ambiguity arises the causality of anything and everything, where hypothetical expectation may, indeed, occur but through infinite avenues of approach never initially supposed. Al-Qaida relinquished its strong foothold in Afghanistan and pushed further East into Pakistan to avoid more casualties, but this was no safe-haven as Osama Bin Laden was eventually targeted and killed at his compound in Abbattabad. The waning power of Al-Qaida exerted a strain on the Taliban, which now fends for itself in Afghanistan at the expense of Al-Qaida’s withdrawal and overall lack of authority with global terrorism. Yet, out of all the satisfaction and glory of America’s triumph in annihilating the monarch of modern terrorism, the sheer pride and amazement of victory had blinded leaders of the free world from another agent of chaos born from the fire and ashes of the Syrian conflict.

The hubris of the United States in the Near East apparently has no stopping point, as aiding and abetting the Al Nusra Front, among other rogue insurgents in Syria, proves just how effortlessly misjudged compromises can backfire. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces have wreaked more carnage upon the land than the Islamic State, massacring civilians and rebels by the day and thereby necessitating a retaliatory militia that has come to be known as the Islamic State. Insurrection by an opposing force to overthrow the regime was a call to action on the sidelines of American involvement, but favored, nonetheless, as a preferred course towards ousting Syria’s dictatorship for good. This, undoubtedly, has not come to fruition and a new wave of terror inextricably linked to the regime has overwhelmed Syria; simply put, President Bashar Al-Assad’s irreverent disregard for human rights and totalitarian onslaught has been, effectively, the “fuel for the fire” of insurgency, that burns evermore explosively with ISIL.

Rapid accession of the Islamic State from across the globe currently takes precedence as a universal matter to be reckoned with, but the intrepidness of foreign fighters uniting with ISIL is most striking–many have left a life of luxury to partake in a violent cause for the hardline implementation of Sharia Law! This phenomenon transpired with Al-Qaida and the Taliban fighters, a significant minority of whom where born in Europe and North America. But the appeal of the Islamic State is pulling in more and more warriors to level Syria and Iraq’s foundations. American foreign policy has now readjusted to cater to the Syrian regime’s initial focus, and the U.S. has taken the lead as a distant yet thoroughly involved observer. Regrettably, the forward momentum of such a switch in protocol has wide-reaching repercussions for America and such an immediate reversal perhaps gives the impression of desperation by the United States. This is unlikely the case though, and the more feasible reason is that ISIL is gaining worldwide support and the influx of new fighters may eventually bog the Syrian regime down to nil, where disorder and anarchy secede the country. If a true Caliphate by the Islamic State is to be founded it will be in Syria once Bashar Al-Assad has disappeared from the scene. 

There are no “front-lines” and there never have been since the War on Terror’s inception; thus, by this condition, the finality of warfare can be as vaguely transparent as the covert operations themselves. The “War on Terrorism” itself is a rather obscure term defined by the curious juxtaposition of absolutism (war) and fundamentalism (terrorism). Such a conventional approach to unconventionality allows the latter to immortalize itself through elusiveness and zealotry, which would promote an ever-widening, ever-present danger at any time and any place. In other words, waging a war against an ideology so unassuming and invisible that it is virtually omniscient would be a campaign fraught with no ends! However, America and all those in opposition to Salafists must counter the threats of the Islamic State and global Jihadism in order to contain these crises, at best.

William Ritter is a Master’s degree holder in Global Affairs & Policy, with dual concentrations in International Security & Foreign Policy and East Asian Studies at Yonsei University's Graduate School of International Studies. His research interests include the politico-economic rise of Asia, the resurgence of fundamentalist ideologies in the modern era, the implications of rapid globalization on contested national identities, and the changing alliance structure and evolving defense posture of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Story

Anger Across the Water: Parallel Trading in Hong Kong

Next Story

Blaming Europe and Arresting Smugglers Will Not Solve the Mediterranean Migrant-Crisis

Latest from International Affairs

The Prism

We must develop and institutionalize individuals and values within democracy, and build structures that safeguard this. Leadership that constantly threatens humanity, like Putin's, is far behind the times. To lead the policies of less developed and developing countries, new types of global mechanisms that also utilize technology are needed; global leadership should be developed with these mechanisms. Therefore, there is a need for new approaches that support the existing nation-state system and leadership that will engage with it.

Potemkin Democracy

In fact, people in the world cannot expect to learn democracy and develop from leaders like Putin or Xi, can they? However, if leaders have authoritarian and populist characteristics, then the idea of ​​developing through democracy will suffer the most. What people need is to be able to further develop through American democracy, to become even more advanced individuals through democracy. What humanity definitely needs is not the proliferation of arrogant and populist figures like oligarchs, authoritarian rulers, and personalities who only know how to work for themselves like Potemkin. Such leaders and politicians highlight oppression and distortions within democracy and foster the development of unwanted tissues in society. People need leaders and politicians who know how to develop within democracy.

Actor’s Stage

Today, we see that alongside states, non-state actors are increasingly prominent on the world stage. Moreover, due to the fact that approaches to these actors are turning into political arguments, there is inevitably a state of instability emerging. Here, we are talking about structures that can be dealt with using quite complex and multiple equations. It's a very challenging situation. Now, let's examine this topic and try to clarify it a bit.

The Nature of the Subject

Whether we express it or not, in every place where politics exists, we contemplate confidence-building measures and the ability to control the situation. Let's describe the most prominent subject of the natural situation that occurs here. If those who lead our organizations act with sufficient consciousness, this will result in a more beneficial outcome for humanity. The explanations here will show us with very natural reasons, what power does the United Nations have?

Strategic Situation and Iranian Geopolitics

Those who hold control are those who know the strategy. If you are talking about conflict, it should be understood in the manner of these new methods. Iran is a significant area of conflict. Israel, under the guise of the more pressing issue of Iran, is interested in making progress in the Eastern Mediterranean for its own benefit.

Don't Miss