On Sept. 10, President Barack Obama announced a plan to “degrade, and ultimately destroy” the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS, formerly an al-Qaida affiliated group. The group has grown to control a region the size of Pennsylvania, through a combination of airstrikes, training of Iraqi forces and aid to moderate rebels.

In order to provide an understanding of what this means for the United States and abroad, The Daily Orange spoke with several experts around the Syracuse University campus, including Miriam Elman, an associate professor of political science, David Crane, former special prosecutor for Sierra Leone and current professor of law at SU and Mehrzad Boroujerdi, chair of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

The Daily Orange: What were your initial reactions to President Obama’s announcement?

Elman: The main question in my mind is, “Can Obama do this?” If he is going to refer to these actions as a war, then he must ask Congress for permission, rather than simply welcoming their support. Obama says that 2001’s Authorization To Use Military Force gives him the power necessary to combat threats to America, even though he himself has argued previously that the act is obsolete. If the president continues to act in this way, without congressional intervention, we risk losing the checks and balances that have guided this country for the past 200 years.

Crane: It is not wise to refer to this as a “conflict” or a “war.” Once you start referring to this as a war, the perspective changes to one of American heavy handedness and aggression. We need to characterize these people as criminals, and our actions as the military pursuit of justice. Realistically it is unlikely that we will ever be able to truly “destroy” ISIS, and by using the word war, you commit the U.S. to carrying out this promise. There is no doubt that this will take much longer than three years.

Boroujerdi: It is about time that the U.S. does something. We should have supported moderate rebels in Syria from the beginning, before they became aligned with dangerous opposition groups. Mr. Obama’s timetable, however, is completely unrealistic. The Middle East is not Las Vegas, what happens there affects the world. You cannot leave it behind, and once you are there you cannot leave. It is wishful thinking to believe that you can wash your hands of it.

The D.O.: What does this mean for the country in the immediate future and in the long term?

Elman: In the near future, Obama will be cautious. The American people are extremely opposed to boots on the ground and, with election season approaching, no one in congress wants to take a side either way. Obama still wants for the U.S. to get out of the Middle East, but he is not afraid to use swift military power.

Crane: In the immediate future there will be no significant changes in day-to-day life. ISIS does not want to incite a major U.S. counteroffensive, but rather maintain a weak engagement that they can repackage as being stronger than the U.S. This announcement essentially signals an escalation of our previous efforts in the region. It shows a clear trajectory for further involvement. It is disingenuous to claim that there will be no boots on the ground.

Boroujerdi: It is hard to predict what will happen. Supporting moderate groups is more fantasy than reality as there are over 1500 such groups. The rebel groups are divided and weak. We cannot continue to fight Syria and ISIS at the same time. There is another level of complexity as many of the major actors in the region are reluctant to get involved. Most of the heavy lifting will have to be done by the U.S.

The D.O.: What actions do you recommend the United States take?

Elman: It is important now to consider the factors that contribute to ISIS’ power. Why did ISIS behead two Americans? In order to get a much larger counteroffensive from the U.S. and solidify the base. Aerial strikes and citizen casualties therefrom can be used to paint the Islamic State as the solution. We need to find out why young men from Europe and the Middle East are joining ISIS. What factors in their lives making fighting seem like a good idea? We need to fix Sunni representation in Iraq and stop alienating peoples into extremism. The cure can only come through economics and diplomacy, finding the cause for the growth of so many terrorist groups.

Crane: The key to making any progress in the Middle East is to act with international support and strength. The Islamic State thrives in an environment where there is an enemy. Characterize the opposition as a criminal rather than as a state and you delegitimize them. Currently most of the groups fighting ISIS are not aligned in any way. Syria and Iran are using it for propaganda purposes. What we need is an international coalition of actors from the region to make the Middle East a safer place.

Boroujerdi: Realistically, if you want to hurt ISIS, you must ramp up the scale past the previous aerial campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen. The president is not being truthful when he claims this will be similar at all to those campaigns.

Published on September 18, 2014 at 2:17 am

Contact Benjamin: brfarr@syr.edu