The release Tuesday of a
shocking video showing the brutal beheading of American journalist James
Foley by a representative of the Islamic State may wind up backfiring
on the Islamic fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of Iraq
in recent months.
The U.S. has
undertaken limited bombing of IS targets in Iraq, which has helped the
Iraqi Army and the fighters from the country’s autonomous Kurdish
region, dislodge IS troops from some areas they had taken over,
including the critically important Mosul Dam.
Foley,
a talented young journalist who had spent years in conflict zones
reporting on the human toll of war, was killed by a single member of IS,
who appears on the video warning the U.S., in British-accented English,
to stop attacking its troops.
“Obama authorized military
operations against the Islamic State effectively placing America upon a
slippery slope towards a new war against Muslims,” he said. The man,
whose face was covered, also threatened to execute another American
journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, if the U.S. involvement in Iraq
continues.
However,
judging from the public outcry over Foley’s murder, it seems possible
that support for President Obama’s limited efforts to impede the
progress of IS, rather than being cooled, may be strengthened going
forward.
The decision to recommit even limited American military
assets to Iraq was criticized by politicians on the left and right. But
an outpouring of disgust in both the traditional media and on social
media Wednesday left little doubt that there is now a powerful strain of
public opinion in favor of taking further action to rein in – and
severely punish – the Islamic State.
To
be sure, some warn that further U.S. engagement might be exactly what
ISIS wants. But the idea that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS,
is sitting in the desert playing three-dimensional chess with the U.S.
doesn’t hold much water.
Related: Why Obama’s Mideast Policy Won’t Stop Genocide
What
ISIS is trying to do, by all accounts, is establish an actual
functioning Islamic state or Caliphate in the Middle East. It may be
different from its neighbors in that its rulers intend to impose a
centuries-old legal system designed to oppress millions of people. But
it will not be different in its need for centralized institutions of
government, transportation and energy infrastructure, and a more or less
public set of leaders.
All
these things are necessary for a functioning state. They are all, also,
potential military targets if the U.S. were to decide to intervene
against the establishment or the continued existence of the Islamic
State.
The U.S. military has
struggled with certain kinds of adversaries over the years. In living
memory, the Viet Cong and Al Qaeda, for example, have been challenging
foes particularly because they were less concerned about holding
territory than they were with damaging American troops.
For
the U.S. military, fighting established governments has been a very
different story. Ask Saddam Hussein, or Mullah Omar. That doesn’t bode
well for the future of ISIS.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reporter-execution-free-obama-hand-162100182.html
No comments:
Post a Comment