How not to tackle Islamic State

The current hysteria shown by both politicians and the mainstream media about Islamic State (IS) is so devoid of reason and factual evidence that it is difficult to know where to start in formulating a corrective. As a researcher who has studied terrorism and political violence since 1987, I can say with some confidence that virtually every single statement about the purported threat posed by IS, or the reasons why a small number of Muslims in Western countries want to travel to Iraq to fight with them, is mostly, if not completely, incorrect. More importantly, based on years of research, I can say with confidence that the recent actions taken by Western countries in response to the purported threat – particularly the decision to bomb IS and to arm groups opposed to it, as well as the decision to try and ban individuals from travelling to Iraq – will at best completely fail to bring peace and security to the region; at worst, these policies will lead directly to more terrorism and violence, worsen the situation greatly and create a predictable self-fulfilling prophesy.

In fact, any intelligent observer of events in the Middle East can work out that the rise of IS is, in the first instance, the direct result of years of reckless Western military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The invasion of Iraq, particularly the disbanding of the Iraqi army and Western support for the corrupt and brutal al-Maliki government, lead directly to the formation of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). For its part, over the years of brutal internecine conflict and insurgency in Iraq since 2003, AQI has more recently morphed into IS. At the same time, the West and its Gulf allies have covertly supported anti-Assad rebels in Syria with weapons and training funneled through Turkey. Some of these groups have now defected to IS. In effect, short-sighted, ill-informed Western policy has contributed directly to the political and strategic conditions that have allowed IS to grow into the force it is today. This is called ‘blowback’ in intelligence circles.

As if this disastrous recent history was not enough, the longer history of Western air campaigns shows that it is quite ineffective in winning wars or creating the conditions for peace, especially against rebel movements like IS. The truth is, bombing has an almost zero chance of defeating IS, as six weeks of intensive bombing already shows. In other words, Western countries have decided to adopt a strategy that has virtually no chance of succeeding, and which in the very recent past helped to create the very problem it is now trying to solve. If the definition of insanity, as Einstein put it, is undertaking the same action over and over again while expecting a different result, then the decision to bomb Iraq for the third time in three decades is a perfect example of insanity.

In addition to ignoring recent history and evidence in relation to the perils of military intervention in the region, Western countries have also decided that IS poses a direct threat to them, and have banned individuals from travelling to Iraq to fight for them. The logic here is that foreign fighters will be radicalized by IS and will return home to wage jihad on their home countries. This is more than a little ridiculous: if individuals have decided to make the dangerous journey to Iraq where they have a high chance of being killed in a brutal war, they are already well-radicalized. In fact, preventing potential fighters from going overseas risks aspiring jihadists turning their attention to targets closer to home. If a thwarted fighter launches an attack on London or Sydney in the next few months, it will be nothing more a completely predictable self-fulfilling prophesy.

In fact, the ignorance and short-sightedness of this policy is highlighted by the fact that out of the many thousands who have travelled to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria and Iraq over previous decades, less than a handful of returned fighters have subsequently become engaged in terrorist activities. Instead, as Denmark is currently finding, many returned fighters are traumatized and disillusioned by their experiences. In effect, they have been de-radicalised after finding that the noble cause they thought they were fighting for was lost in the squalid brutality of internecine war. In other words, according to the best academic evidence available, the threat posed by returning fighters is extremely low. It certainly does not warrant the hysterical response we are currently seeing in the United Kingdom and other European countries. The Australian government’s reaction is particularly over-the-top: restricting press freedoms, confiscating passports and whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria will do nothing except create social conflict and disorder.

On the other hand, every major terrorist attack on Western targets since 2001, including the attacks in Bali, Madrid, London and Boston, has been claimed by the perpetrators to be revenge for Western military intervention in the Middle East. Even the beheadings of Western hostages were justified by IS captors as a response to US bombing. In fact, every major academic study of the past ten years has confirmed that Western military intervention and its policies in the Middle East, including support for the state of Israel, is the primary motivation for anti-Western terrorist attacks. In 1996, a major study by the CATO Institute concluded that U.S. military intervention overseas was the primary driver of anti-American terrorism. The Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism has drawn the same fundamental conclusion. In other words, the greater risk of terrorism comes not from returning fighters, but from the decision to bomb Iraq once again.

There is no doubt that IS is a brutal insurgent group. However, it is far from the worst such group we have seen in recent decades, and the current measures designed to tackle it will achieve nothing but further blowback. New Zealand has thus far not succumbed to the overreaction and hysteria of Australia, the UK, the US and other European countries. In considering whether to respond to IS, the New Zealand government would be well advised to pay due attention to the academic evidence, rather than ill-informed, knee-jerk reactions and ignorant media speculation. There is plenty of good research and information which could help to make reasonable and effective policies. However, the media and politicians need to take the time to consult it, instead of rushing headlong into another completely pointless and self-defeating war.

This article was originally published as an op-ed in the Otago Daily Times on Wednesday 1 October 2014. Originally, I had entitled it, ‘The Insanity of Western Foreign Policy’, but I presumed it would not get published under that heading.

About richardjacksonterrorismblog

I am currently Professor of Peace Studies and the Director of the National Peace and Conflict Studies Centre at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Prior to this, I was Professor of International Politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, UK. I study and teach on issues of pacifism and nonviolence, terrorism, political violence, conflict resolution and war. I have published several books on these topics, including: The Routledge Handbook of Critical Terrorism Studies (Routledge, 2016); Terrorism: A Critical Introduction (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011; co-authored with Lee Jarvis, Jeroen Gunning and Marie Breen Smyth); Contemporary State Terrorism: Theory and Cases (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010; edited by Richard Jackson, Eamon Murphy and Scott Poynting); Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009; edited by Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning); Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods and Approaches (Ann Arbor MI: Michigan University Press, 2009; co-authored with Jacob Bercovitch); and Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counterterrorism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005). I am also the editor-in-chief of the academic journal, Critical Studies on Terrorism. In 2014, I published a research-based novel entitled, Confessions of a Terrorist (Zed Books, 2014) which explores the mind and motivation of a terrorist.
This entry was posted in Counter-terrorism, Terrorism and Extremism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to How not to tackle Islamic State

  1. Matthew Hoh says:

    Bravo Richard.


    Sent from my iPhone


  2. gruvinnz says:

    Yeah, well .. thanks, but … I got two paragraphs in and stopped. This guy is so totally full of shit.

    Those assholes (IS) are now and have always been the enemies of all intelligent, free thinking, love motivated, future looking people of this planet. That we the West have repeatedly gone in there to smash them down is a matter of protecting our way of life from their sick, evil religious bullshit — knowing that they would do the same to us. They are not mad at us for repeatedly smashing them down. We are mad at them for repeatedly NEEDING to be smashed down! It is not the West’s fault that they are a bunch of evil cunts who need a right royal sorting out. Suggesting otherwise is just moronic.

    It may be a self-fullfinng prophesy that the war will lead to more war. But it was Mohammed’s self-fullfilling prophecy, not ours. So be it. They asked for it. They’re gone get it. Period. That their own blood who do not share their evil views (or claim not to) get caught in the firing line is THEIR fault. Not ours. They wanted this war. It’s all they’ve EVER wanted. So here it is.

    The idea that just ignoring them and letting them grow in numbers in strength could in any way be a good thing or any way lead to peace smack of so much ignorance and stupidity as to suggest with little doubt that the author of that article is just another part of the evil IS propaganda machine.

    This war is not an act of terrorism. It is a RESPONSE to terrorism for the purpose of PROTECTING your family and way of life, you muppet. Get real man!

    • Em says:

      That is certainly one way of voicing your opinion gruvinnz and you are welcome to hold that view. But I would say while obviously IS and their behaviour do not have a place in the way you and I see a healthy society but if you asked yourself honestly, what are you scared of? Are IS really a direct threat to you? Is their military capability (which seems to be mostly ground forces) really a threat to western nations and the sophisticated weaponry they wield? I cannot see how further militarising the middle east will actually deliver anything but more power, weapons and sympathy to radical groups like IS and as a result increased danger to your world. That is what you should be scared of in my view.

  3. That’s just a little bit lunatic, gruvinnz. Al Qaeda was never present in Iraq until the West invaded and dismantled the Iraqui army and then supported the brutal Malikki government. Similarly, Islamic State never existed until Iraq fell into civil war (which was a consequence of Western military intervention), and the Syrian civil war started. Then the West started funnelling arms to anti-Assad groups, who have since joined IS. Western policy has destabilised the Middle East, especially the Iraq/Syria region, for decades. The rise of IS is a direct consequence of this interference. My point is simply that more bombing, more arming of different factions, and more interference is not going to solve the problem. That’s like pouring gasoline onto a forest fire. It’s the definition of insanity.

  4. Pingback: Pressenza - Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon of the Global Elite


  6. Pingback: Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon of the Global Elite | Rethinking Islam With Sultan Shahin

  7. Pingback: Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon Of The Global Elite | PushBack

  8. Pingback: TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon of the Global Elite

  9. Pingback: Terrorism: ultimate weapon of the global elite |

  10. Pingback: Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon of the Global Elite | Human Wrongs Watch

  11. Pingback: Robert J. Burrowes | Terrorism: Ultimate Weapon of the Global Elite | Rise Up Times

  12. Pingback: TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Nonviolence Charter: Progress Report 6 (Apr 2015)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s