The Foreign Policy Essay: Hearts, Minds, & ISIL by Raphael S. Cohen, Lawfare
With the decision to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the United States is once again fighting an insurgency. The United States is loath to admit this fact, preferring to label its actions somewhat differently—as a “comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.” And yet the fact remains that ISIL—with an organization that numbers tens of thousands strong, controls territory, mobilizes the population, and seeks to overthrow and replace a constituted government—fits most definitions of an insurgency. Though it also behaves at times like a terrorist group, it is nonetheless an insurgency. The challenge facing the United States is what to do about it...
Comments
Hi, very interesting topic…
Hi, very interesting topic for essay. I really understand that it is quite difficult to write a good essay under the pressure of thoughts that a lot can depend on it. Therefore, the authors of writehistoryessay.com can write essay for you. Аll you have to do is turn to them for help. They kick the best essays on your chosen topic.
In August 1957, the Federation of Malaya was granted independence and the insurrection lost its rationale as a war of colonial liberation.
What boon might the "colonial" powers grant today, which would, as in August 1957 and re: the Malayan Emergency, cause our current insurrections to loose their rationale for war?
What today's "colonial" powers would have to give up is their insistence that the "different" states and societies of the world become organized, ordered and oriented more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
But this such "boon" today's "colonial" powers are not likely to grant.
Why is this?
Because -- as was the case during the Cold War and again today -- such a grant (essentially allowing for alternative ways of life, alternative ways of governance and alternative values, attitudes and beliefs); this tends to stop the West from achieving its political objective, to wit: acquiring and/or maintaining optimal access to, and optimal utilization of, the human and other resources contained within these various states and societies.
So if it did not, during the Cold War and re: the communists, make Western "political objective" sense -- to grant concessions to allow non-western ways of life, non-western ways of governance and non-western values, attitudes and beliefs,
Then, likewise today and re: the Islamists, it does not make Western "political objective" sense -- to grant such concessions to the natives of these states and societies.
Thus, as to "hearts and minds" -- and concessions that might be made to "win" same -- it is exceptionally important to distinguish between:
a. Apples: To wit: Concessions that one CAN make (such as independence -- if done more along modern western lines -- for such nations as the Malayan Federation); this, because these such concessions DO NOT prevent one from achieving one's political objective (acquiring and/or maintaining optimal access to and optimal utilization of the human and other resources contained within these nations). And
b. Oranges: To wit: Concessions that the one CAN NOT grant (such as the allowance for alternative ways of life, alternative ways of governance and alternative values, attitudes and beliefs); this, because these such concessions DO prevent one from achieving one's political objective (noted in the paragraph immediately above).
During the Malayan Emergency, independence was what the people were fighting for. This could be granted. Why? Because this did not prevent the West from achieving its political objective, to wit: acquiring/maintaining optimal access to and optimal utilization of the human and other resources contained within Malaysia.
Today what the people of the Islamic World appear to be fighting for (much as were their Cold War predecessors) is the freedom to have a non-western way of life, a non-western way of governance, etc. And this, much as was the case with the communists during the Cold War, we cannot, for political objective reasons (then as now) accommodate.
To sum up:
While we might be more than happy to grant such boons as "independence" -- to win hearts and minds and thereby quell insurgencies -- the price that we require for such boons is transformation of the subject state and society more along modern western political, economic and social lines. And this price (much as was the case during the Cold War) various people -- again today -- are not willing to pay.
Instead, what these folks desire/require is (1) independence and (2) on their own terms. And we cannot, we believe, for our political objective's sake, allow such a thing to happen.
So why might these folks desire independence and on their own terms? Because they believe that the price that we demand for such things as independence (to wit: transformation more along modern western lines); this actually provides that they will become MORE -- rather than LESS -- dependent on the West. And here can we say that they are wrong? (Let's ask Putin.)