AN ALTERNATIVE ISIS STRATEGY

There must be better ways to relate to Middle Eastern Muslims than the ones we have chosen. Three fallacious assumptions have formed the basis for many mistakes: “The enemies of my enemies are my friends.” “The friends of my enemies are my enemies.” “Those who are not for us are against us.” Here are two examples of where that logic took us.

We saw the Soviet Union as our enemy. The socialist government of Afghanistan in the 1970s was their friend – and therefore our enemy. So we allied ourselves with that government’s mujahidin enemy in a war where over a million people perished. Many others became refugees, fleeing mostly to Pakistan and Iran. Afghanistan has never recovered from the chaos created by our mujahidin friends and their offspring, the Taliban.

Iraqi Shiites were enemies of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni dictatorship so they became our friends. Because of that, many Sunnis were not with us so we concluded that they were against us and supported a Shiite government that systematically excluded Sunnis. In response, some of the Sunnis radicalized and ISIS emerged. Now we find our interests aligned with an enemy of our new ISIS enemy – Iran.

Our President and leaders of both political parties have been stumped by how to deal with the anarchy resulting from the Iraq war and the devolution of the “Arab Spring” into religious civil war. Then along came ISIS with its astonishingly brutal methods for imposing a religious dictatorship, including the beheading of Western reporters and aid workers. That moved American policy far more than the kidnapping and sale of little girls by Boko Haram.

Based on our old assumptions, the US is seeking enemies of ISIS to be our friends so that we can arm them for a ground war while we bomb ISIS from the air. This may deter ISIS but it will not bring an end to anti-American terrorism. It may even nourish the terrorist cause.

An option that has worked before is direct communication with citizens of other nations. Radio Free Europe was beamed across the “iron curtain” to Eastern Europeans and Russians. Some broadcasts were by refugees. They promoted personal freedom by providing honest news in local languages along with western entertainment that was not available in communist nations – enjoyable insurrectionists like Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry. In former communist nations this strategy supported constructive and peaceful change from within. It could be adapted for the Middle East on radio, TV, and the internet.

A communication strategy could include religious teaching by liberal Muslims whose values include notions like education and civil rights for women, freedom of religious thought, freedom of speech, and private property rights – maybe even talk radio dialogue to help mold public opinion. It is not normal within Islam for people to be driven from their homes and made into poverty stricken refugees by some other sect of Muslims. As people begin to understand a constructive alternative, many will want it. They will be able to achieve that kind of freedom only after they have rid their communities of terrorists. ISIS does far more damage at it home than in the US.

Non-aggressive strategies of this kind might make it less difficult to infiltrate terrorist groups and learn of plans for attacks in western nations so that they can be prevented. That won’t be foolproof, but it is likely to be at least as successful as military action.

Our Air Force and drones could still come in handy. They could document the location of terrorist camps and broadcast them so that everyone would be aware. Who knows what locals might do with that information? Rather than dropping bombs, our planes might drop radios to receive our broadcasts, entertainment CDs and DVDs that also demonstrate ideals of freedom, and maybe even some popcorn to go along with them. Communication is more likely to make friends and influence people than dropping bombs. It doesn’t kill people and make enemies of their families and friends. And it’s a lot less expensive. For comparison, each smart bomb costs about $30,000 and a tomahawk cruise missile is around $700,000.

War has only made things worse. There is little to lose and a lot to gain by giving communication a chance.