The American Campaign against ISIS and the ISIS Response

The American Campaign against ISIS and the ISIS Response

This post is also available in: heעברית (Hebrew)

Written by The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

ISIS FtreISIS’ dramatic successes in the summer of 2014 were a strong blow to American foreign policy in Iraq. America’s objective was to establish a democratic Iraqi regime that would fight terrorism and provide the country with a stable administration. That proved to be completely unrealistic. The Iraqi army, in whose establishment the United States invested enormous resources, was exposed as weak, as was the Shi’ite-affiliated central regime in Baghdad supported by America. Moreover, the Americans regarded the rapid establishment of ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria and Iraq as threatening the stability of Middle Eastern countries (among them Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Gulf States). In addition, there was a significant rise in the number of foreign fighters who fought in the ranks of ISIS and other jihadi organizations in Syria and Iraq and who might endanger the security of America and other Western countries when they returned to their countries of origin.

During the first three years of the Syrian civil war the United States did not attach great significance to ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front, and tended to regard them as part of the general chaos created in Syria and Iraq after the regimes in both countries disintegrated. The change in American policy began in the summer of 2014 with the fall of Mosul, the declaration of the Islamic Caliphate and the significant increase in the number of foreign fighters. The media-documented slaughter and executions carried out by ISIS horrified and enraged American and Western public opinion and also contributed to the change in American policy.

Register to iHLS Israel Homeland Security

The United States altered its policy from underestimating ISIS to demonizing it and representing it as a significant regional and international threat. The change in concept required an American response, which was given in two stages: the first (June – August 2014) consisted of “pinpointed” responses intended to support the local forces in Iraq in halting the momentum of ISIS attacks. The pinpointed responses mostly involved sporadic aerial attacks, the dispatch of a small number of advisors and providing besieged minorities with humanitarian aid. However, it quickly became clear that pinpointed responses were ineffective and did not provide a satisfactory answer to the challenges to American interests posed by the successes of ISIS.

For that reason, the second stage was formulated as a comprehensive strategy for a campaign against ISIS, as noted in a speech given by President Obama on September 10, 2014. The objective of the new strategy was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS in the following ways: massive aerial bombings in Syria and Iraq; reinforcing the local forces in Syria and Iraq (the Iraqi army, the Kurdish forces, the so-called moderate rebel organizations in Syria); damaging the sources of ISIS’ power (especially its financial resources);improving the United States’ and the international community’s deterrent capabilities against the foreign fighters and deepening international collaboration against them. President Obama and spokesmen for the American administration repeatedly stressed that the new strategy did not include sending a significant ground force to fight in Syria or Iraq, the so-called “boots on the ground.”

To implement the strategy, in a relatively short period of time the United States established an international coalition of Western and Arab countries. The Western allies (most importantly France and Britain) participated in the aerial attacks on Iraq while some of the Arab states (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Bahrain) joined the aerial attacks on Syria. By the end of October 2014 the United States and its allies had carried out 632 aerial attacks against ISIS’ military and economic infrastructure in Syria and Iraq (286 in Syria and 346 in Iraq). The attacks have continued into November.

In ITIC assessment, the new American strategy suffers from a series of weaknesses, which are detailed in this study. The main among them are that its political objectives, both declared and undeclared, seem unrealistic; it is extremely difficult to destroy an organization with a Salafist-jihadi ideology such as ISIS; there are limits to what military force can achieve against jihad organizations in general and ISIS in particular; the local forces in Syria and Iraq that America is counting on are weak; and the coalition is heterogeneous, composed of countries with different interests and internal constraints that are liable to make it difficult for them to provide the United States with effective support.

Beyond the inherent weaknesses in the American strategy, societal and political situations in Syria and Iraq are complex and fluctuating. They cannot be fundamentally changed through military action, limited or even extensive. That is because ISIS and other Salafist-jihadi terrorist organizations arose from the chaos in security and the societal and political disintegration of Syria and Iraq, and because of the drastic changes caused by the regional upheaval. Iraq and Syria are a swamp in which ISIS and other jihadi organizations thrive. Rooting out ISIS will be impossible until the swamp has been drained, and that is currently not on the horizon.

However, ISIS has its own inherent weaknesses, which are examined in this study. If the United States learns to exploit them the campaign against ISIS may have positive results, although perhaps less far-reaching than expected by President Obama. The American-led military, economic and political campaign, if continued with determination, may eventually weaken (although not destroy) ISIS; its spread throughout Syria and Iraq may be halted (with the campaign of Baghdad still on the agenda); and the Iraqi army and local organizations/militias within Syria and Iraq hostile to ISIS can be strengthened. The campaign against ISIS may also improve the way the United States and its allies deal with the foreign fighters who return to their countries of origin.

As to ISIS’ responses to the American campaign, ISIS has publicly beheaded five abductees, three American and two British. On September 21, 2014, ISIS called on its supporters around the globe to use a variety of methods to kill civilians in the United States and its allied countries. It is possible that a number of terrorist attacks, including the vehicular and shooting attacks in Canada, the planned beheading of Australians and attacks in other countries were the first responses to the call.

There are potential dangers both to the West and to Israel in regional politics caused by the subversive potential of the increasing strength of Al-Qaeda and the global jihad in Syria and Iraq. The influence of a strong Al-Qaeda and global jihad in those countries might filter into the entire Arab world, including pro-Western countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which so far have shown themselves strong enough to survive the regional upheaval. It might also give more power to the global jihad organizations and networks in countries peripheral to the heart of the Middle East which have failed regimes (such as Libya and Yemen)or weak regimes (such as Tunisia).

Methodology

ISIS (sometimes ISIL) is an acronym for The Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria. Once the Caliphate was declared ISIS began calling itself the “Islamic State (IS)” or the “Caliphate State.” However, this study refers to the organization as ISIS, the term usually used by the international community, the Arab and Western media, and even by “Islamic State” supporters.

In preparing this study, the ITIC dealt with a number of challenges:

1)  Turning a large amount of information into a comprehensive picture: When ISIS became a regional and international threat, individual bits of information became a daily flood. One of the challenges in preparing this study was turning them into a comprehensive research whole that examined the various aspects of ISIS’ rise: its historical and causal background; its Islamic and Salafist-jihadi roots; its objectives; its military, political, administrative and financial capabilities; and the Iraqi, Syrian, Middle Eastern and international environments in which it operates

2)  Frequent changes in the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria: During the past half year dramatic developments occurred in Iraq and Syria, with the regional upheaval in the background. In addition, ISIS is basically a dynamic organization, continually seeking to change the status quo both in the areas in which it operates against a large number of local enemies, and against the international campaign currently being waged against it. That forced the ITIC staff to update the study continually, understand the significance of tactical developments and examine and reexamine the situation on the ground. That situation is still in flux, so this study may be considered an interim report, which will have to be updated in the future.

3)  The need to integrate information from various disciplines and fields: ISIS cannot be analyzed and examined only as a terrorist organization operating within a local national framework. A study of ISIS necessitates integrating various fields of knowledge, among them the history of Islam (including the Sunni-Shi’ite schism); the Salafist-jihadi movement from which ISIS sprang; the changes in Al-Qaeda and the global jihad; the developments in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the various aspects of the Middle Eastern upheaval. In preparing the study the ITIC used the existing literature and studies, and received support from experts in the various fields.

4)  Problematic sources of information: In preparing the study we used primary sources from ISIS and other jihadi organizations. ISIS frequently posts information on the Internet about itself and its activities, but it is self-glorifying propaganda meant to sully the reputations of its rivals, threaten its enemies and deflect accusations. There is also a vast amount of information posted by ISIS’ many rivals, which tend to defame the organization and sometimes manipulate the extent of its potential threat. In preparing this study we used investigative reports from correspondents (some of them Western) who had been allowed into areas under ISIS control. However the information to which they were exposed was sometimes directed and supervised by ISIS and intended to serve its political and propaganda objectives. Because of the awareness of the problem and because of the lack of trustworthy sources of information, all sources were treated carefully and critically.