If ISIS Isn’t Defeated, It Won’t Be Deterred

When Islamic State (ISIS) forces took over the Iraqi city of Ramadi, it staged a victory parade over half a mile long. We know because we have pictures. But for reasons not entirely clear, U.S. and other coalition air forces did nothing at a moment when we could have delivered a serious blow to an enemy that not only threatens U.S. security but the lives and fortunes of poor Christians and even their fellow Muslims all over the Middle East.

Many commentators from various parts of the political spectrum have been wondering why we, which is to say, primarily, President Barack Obama, seem to have lost interest in this fight. The most common excuse these days is that the United States has put in place very strict rules of engagement in order to avoid civilian casualties. And since we have no troops on the ground to identify targets, approval of strikes is slow — to the point of frustrating whatever effectiveness the few sorties we are flying might have.

You only have to look at the pictures of the victory parade to see what this means. There’s a long line of trucks, weapons and soldiers along a desert road, with no conspicuous problem about collateral damage. Certainly, our military intelligence people must have known they were there, since even the press did. Many Iraqis themselves were puzzled by our inaction. And yet, nothing.

The current situation raises a number of troubling questions both about the moral conduct of this war and its political dimensions. There’s no question about the urgency of action, especially if we hope to defend Middle-Eastern Christians. Chaldean Patriarch Archbishop Louis Sako has deplored the lack of response, “The West watched us, and it seemed they have ignored our suffering.”

Even Pope Francis has remarked that ISIS, with its many atrocities and affronts to human dignity, must be stopped. He added “not bombed,” but short of some serious reintroduction of ground troops — probably the 10,000 to 15,000 who should have been left in place by the president anyway — it’s difficult to see how such a murderous movement can be “stopped.” And we’d still need to bomb ISIS anyway — if we really want to do the job.

Of course, whether we have the will to win is where the real question lies. No one is in favor of a massive ground invasion of Iraq again. We had a chance to preserve such peace as there was a few years ago, but lost it by a premature departure. And that has complicated both the military and political situation. Maintaining popular support for a war is a tricky thing in a democracy and requires both leadership and a clear vision of what we hope to achieve.

Americans are not much inclined to spend more blood and treasure on Iraq. But at the same time, we are not very comfortable watching people being beheaded and burned alive, the cultural patrimony of ancient human civilizations being pounded into dust, churches and Christian communities being demolished and threats growing in the short run to friends and allies in the region, as well as longer-term threats to Europe and America.

This sort of threat is particularly difficult to address because it’s easier — for leaders and people alike — to look away and hope it will go away. Or we’d prefer to debate who’s more to blame for the current chaos — W. or Obama — when what matters far more now is to take responsibility for the future. We’d like to think that it’s the business of the Iraqis themselves to deal with it or that we can retreat to some traditional form of isolationism, since we can’t be the world’s policemen. There is some truth in these contentions. But in the modern world it’s almost impossible to let a threat like this fester without it becoming a potentially bigger problem — much bigger.

We grope for historical parallels to help us decide what to do, but even those can never be more than approximate. I was talking with a man very deep in modern history recently, and he surprised me by saying that, even though he did not much like America becoming involved in Iraq again, he was worried that the situation was like Europe in 1914. That was the year in which a single event — the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand — touched off World War I, which set the stage for the even larger conflagration of World War II. All told, it led to millions dead.

What might it take this time: a massive incursion into one of the American allied states like Jordan or Israel? Or suppose ISIS sympathizers in Europe or America were to explode a dirty bomb or just a large conventional bomb, with hundreds or thousands of casualties in a large city? The Middle East is always a potential powder keg, but the fuse now is very short. And any large explosion is likely to engulf all the world powers, including players like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

There are thoughtful, responsible people who believe our greater involvement will itself give a push to ISIS sympathizers already living among us. That, too, is certainly a danger. But there’s no denying that allowing ISIS to conquer more territory, commit more outrages and make even larger claims to being a resurgent caliphate is likely to produce the most mayhem and destruction overall.

There is much uncertainty in these matters. But since doing nothing is producing bad results, maybe doing something would stop or at least mitigate them. Personally, I think there’s no alternative to someone — perhaps the next U.S. president — sending in 10,000-15,000 troops on a carefully defined mission. And leaving them there for no little time to come.

We also need to ramp up our current air strikes. Bombs are only good for two things: killing people and breaking things. If doing those things does not lead over time to a more peaceful world, it’s difficult to see how, in terms of just-war theory, we can keep up what we are doing or even continue drone strikes. Sometimes it’s enough to deter an enemy. But an ISIS that is not defeated will not be deterred.

We have had almost 30,000 soldiers in South Korea for decades, and it would be a great achievement if we could stabilize Iraq sufficiently so that our forces there would be more of a peace-keeping presence than anything else. But to get to there from where we are now will take determination — and a change of strategy. It might not work. But then again, all the alternatives seem far worse.

Robert Royal, Ph.D., is the founder and president

of the Faith & Reason

Institute in Washington

and editor in chief of The Catholic Thing website.