The ISIS Problem Will Not Be Solved With War

Everyone with access to television, radio and newspapers has heard of ISIS. The radical extremist group that has been terrorizing the globe through kidnapping and murder has gained infamy and spread to a number of countries, including Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt in a short amount of time.

Their shocking propaganda videos of beheading and burning citizens from countries all over the world to death – the United Kingdom, Japan, Jordan, Egypt and the U.S. – have horrified the public and pushed governments of many countries to take action against the terrorist group. The Jordan government took action in the form of airstrikes against ISIS following the news that the group had burned Jordanian pilot, Moath al-Kasasbeh, to death.

The U.S., particularly the Obama administration, is also looking into ways to step up the country’s involvement in the fight against ISIS. According to a Feb. 10 New York Times article, Congress is debating whether to grant President Barack Obama the war powers necessary to combat ISIS.

The ability of the U.S. military isn’t in question here, however, the issue for some Democrats is the possibility of going to war and thus losing more American lives. Some Republicans also question the president’s strategy in the fight against ISIS.

“After more than a decade of war and 7,000 American military lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama will face doubts not only from Democrats who want stricter limitations set on where he can send troops and how long his authority will last, but also from Republicans, who are dubious of the administration’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State extremist group,” the same Feb. 10 New York Times article stated.

The article goes onto state that Obama and his advisors do not need Congress’ approval for their military action against the terrorist group.

“The Obama administration has insisted that it does not need Congress’ authority to continue its military campaign,” New York Times states. “But an affirmative vote from Congress would bolster the legitimacy that the president already claims as commander in chief in the battle against the Islamic State…”

However, this is not all that the U.S. can or should do to prevent these powerful terrorist organizations from gaining power.

Before the Obama administration and Congress implement a more formal military initiative to combat ISIS in the Middle East, they must look at the reasons ISIS exists and does the awful acts the organization does.

Bombing the areas in which ISIS hold power will only create more poor and resentful people who might be convinced to support or join ISIS. ISIS’ real power is to provide an outlet, albeit a deadly and misguided one, to the thoughts and feelings of frustration at the systematical negligence that many people face in the Middle East.

By wielding the influence that this country currently has in the area as well as the added influence that dealing with ISIS will provide, the U.S. can help ensure a more stable form of government with the promise of closer relations, both politically and economically.

It is not this country’s job to guarantee the prosperity of the people that suffer under the weight of oppressive governments elsewhere. The U.S. should demand to see signs of goodwill and of change in the governments most affected by ISIS in exchange for our help with eradicating the menace. This should be done simply out of the desire to mitigate the driving forces behind radicalized movements in the Middle East.