In The Rise of the Islamic State, Patrick Cockburn, award-winning Irish journalist, investigates instability in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS as a global threat. Volatility in the Middle East began long ago with a centuries-old schism involving Sunni and Shia Islamists. ISIS is a present-day Sunni jihadist group, targeting Shia in Syria and Iraq. The group also threatens anyone who is “targeted as an ‘apostate’ or ‘polytheist’ or who is simply against its rule.” Cockburn brings to light the sudden rise of this new insurgency, the lack of concern from the general public, and the government’s inability to combat the revolts.
Wahhabism, an Islamic religion based on the Qur’an, has dominated the Sunni belief system. Wahhabism regulates …show more content…
Western leaders were always portrayed by the media in a “sympathetic light.” Even military intervention and the overthrowing of Gaddafi on the part of the US, Britain, and France was diverted by the media, giving the public an inaccurate portrayal of the war on the front lines. Cockburn believes that “everybody in war has a more-than-usual strong motive for misrepresenting their achievements and failures.” Western powers are not exempt from this statement, as their primary role in this war has been to mitigate fear and lessen the growing support for ISIS. They will achieve these goals at any cost. In some cases, foreign powers do not intervene. One example is when Washington showed a lack of concern and failed to intervene militarily in Syria when chemical weapons were used against civilians. Whether the US chose not to intervene due to information lag or an inaccurate portrayal of the severity of the events, one may not know. Regardless, it is clear that Western Powers do not have a clearly defined role in the war on terror, which sends mixed signals to the public and Middle Eastern allies. The US cannot fight this war with one foot out the …show more content…
The Obama administration has made clear its plan to “degrade and destroy” ISIS militants; however, Cockburn insists that ISIS will continue to expand, rather than contract, its control. ISIS successes indicate that US foreign policy has not been effective. US policy involves a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia and other regional powers that oppose ISIS. US military support primarily involves airstrikes and airdropped weapons and medical supplies. However, ISIS militants are quick to seize the airdropped supplies, leaving little or no aid for US allies. In no recent report has Washington clearly stated its goals with relations to ISIS. Going forward, the US must develop a clear, concise foreign policy. Also, the administration should consider the implications of ISIS threats within the US; this should be their first priority. With regards to US military actions in the Middle East, our resources and men are not expendable and while the US must maintain relations with Saudi Arabia due to our oil dependence, Washington should only support Saudi actions that support national
Wahhabism, an Islamic religion based on the Qur’an, has dominated the Sunni belief system. Wahhabism regulates …show more content…
Western leaders were always portrayed by the media in a “sympathetic light.” Even military intervention and the overthrowing of Gaddafi on the part of the US, Britain, and France was diverted by the media, giving the public an inaccurate portrayal of the war on the front lines. Cockburn believes that “everybody in war has a more-than-usual strong motive for misrepresenting their achievements and failures.” Western powers are not exempt from this statement, as their primary role in this war has been to mitigate fear and lessen the growing support for ISIS. They will achieve these goals at any cost. In some cases, foreign powers do not intervene. One example is when Washington showed a lack of concern and failed to intervene militarily in Syria when chemical weapons were used against civilians. Whether the US chose not to intervene due to information lag or an inaccurate portrayal of the severity of the events, one may not know. Regardless, it is clear that Western Powers do not have a clearly defined role in the war on terror, which sends mixed signals to the public and Middle Eastern allies. The US cannot fight this war with one foot out the …show more content…
The Obama administration has made clear its plan to “degrade and destroy” ISIS militants; however, Cockburn insists that ISIS will continue to expand, rather than contract, its control. ISIS successes indicate that US foreign policy has not been effective. US policy involves a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia and other regional powers that oppose ISIS. US military support primarily involves airstrikes and airdropped weapons and medical supplies. However, ISIS militants are quick to seize the airdropped supplies, leaving little or no aid for US allies. In no recent report has Washington clearly stated its goals with relations to ISIS. Going forward, the US must develop a clear, concise foreign policy. Also, the administration should consider the implications of ISIS threats within the US; this should be their first priority. With regards to US military actions in the Middle East, our resources and men are not expendable and while the US must maintain relations with Saudi Arabia due to our oil dependence, Washington should only support Saudi actions that support national