Out of nowhere--well, actually, from Fort Leavenworth--famed WikiLeaks leaker Chelsea Manning
writes op-ed for
The Guardian's site on how to deal with ISIS that might work better than backlash-provoking bombing.
Based on my experience as an all-source analyst in Iraq during the
organization’s relative infancy, Isis cannot be defeated by bombs and
bullets – even as the fight is taken to Syria, even if it is conducted by non-Western forces with air support.
I believe that Isis is fueled precisely by the operational and
tactical successes of European and American military force that would be
– and have been – used to defeat them. I believe that Isis
strategically feeds off the mistakes and vulnerabilities of the very
democratic western states they decry. The Islamic State’s center of
gravity is, in many ways, the United States, the United Kingdom and
those aligned with them in the region.
When it comes to regional insurgency with global implications, Isis
leaders are canny strategists. It’s clear to me that they have a solid
and complete understanding of the strengths and, more importantly, the
weaknesses of the west. They know how we tick in America and Europe –
and they know what pushes us toward intervention and overreach. This
understanding is particularly clear considering the Islamic State’s
astonishing success in recruiting numbers of Americans, Britons,
Belgians, Danes and other Europeans in their call to arms.
Attacking Isis directly, by air strikes or special operations forces,
is a very tempting option available to policymakers, with immediate
(but not always good) results. Unfortunately, when the west fights fire
with fire, we feed into a cycle of outrage, recruitment, organizing and
even more fighting that goes back decades. This is exactly what happened
in Iraq during the height of a civil war in 2006 and 2007, and it can only be expected to occur again.
And avoiding direct action with Isis can be successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment