"Can Political Struggle against ISIL Succeed where ..." Topic

…Violence Cannot?.

"It is widely believed that violent savages such as those fighting on behalf of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) understand only force. This default thinking is reinforced by policymakers' ready access to military tools. However, violent action is often counterproductive and nonviolent strategies for dealing with ISIL have unexamined potential.

ISIL's unquestioned brutality has encouraged the formation of an international coalition to fight it. This coalition is presently engaged in a bombing campaign though "boots on the ground" are beginning to look more and more likely. Historically, however, armed interventions have a poor record of ending violent conflicts—something not acknowledged enough in U.S. policy and security circles. External armed interventions tend to extend the duration of civil wars and even worse, increase the number of civilians killed. A country has a more than 40% chance of relapsing into civil war within 10 years if the conflict is resolved through violent means. In addition, such military campaigns are expensive. The U.S. military campaign against ISIL has already cost close to $1 USD billion, while the total cost by the end of the year could range between $2.4 USD billion and $3.8 USD billion.

The bombing campaign against ISIL has already created unintended though foreseeable consequences. It increased admiration for ISIL, encouraged other jihadist groups—including some from Egypt, Algeria, Yemen and Libya—to declare their allegiance to ISIL, and potentially caused the divided Syrian jihadist groups to contemplate closer cooperation. Perhaps even more importantly, the bombing is generating growing anger among ordinary people on the ground who would not necessarily support jihadists but are now blaming the American-led intervention for food and fuel shortages, power blackouts, and civilian casualties…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

i had the same question in my head…earing the Pope Franciscus saying …"save the people persecuted by terrorist (without mentioning who they are) but do not use the force"

With ISIL I d say no. With other groups like hamas, hezbollah, eta then yes, but theyre politically driven at root.
Politics could reduce the view of the west as an enemy since isil etcs priority is imposing their views on fellow muslims.Certainly some western policies dont hurt their recruitment.I suspect if they ever "won" anywhere there would ongoing violence between smaller and smaller splinter groups to determine whos was the correct doctrine.

Soon or later though theyll have to be wiped out I think.

I think all of you are ignoring valuable historical precedents by not remembering how the armies of the Great Khan handled the Assassins.

I'm pretty sure the only disucssion that Daish understands comes in 6-9 round bursts or from a drone, TLAM, airstrike, etc. … Give peace a chance, but I'll ocver you anyway…

Well, any solution will have both military and political dimensions. Picking one over the other is just foolish.

-Will