- Jin Liangxiang
- Senior Research Fellow
- Center for west Asian & African Studies
- Institute for International Strategic Studies
Jan 04 2016
Is military intervention by external powers a cure?
By Jin Liangxiang
Military intervention by external powers has been enshrined as a major means of tackling the ISIS threat in the Middle East region as the U.S., France, Britain, Germany and Russia have been involved militarily in the fight against ISIS. However, military intervention by external powers is far from a cure of the ISIS disease, despite its previous success in addressing conventional security threats and its initial effectiveness along some fronts.
External military intervention truly has served to maintain regional order in the 1990s and to prevent serious humanitarian problems from taking place. In 1991, the multi-national forces led by the U.S. and authorized by the UN Security Council launched a military campaign, which drove Saddam Hussein's forces back to Iraq. That operation not only restored Kuwait's sovereignty but also protected the UN principle of no change of borders by military means.
On April 5, 1991, U.S., Britain and France established a security zone in Iraq's Kurdish region to protect Kurds from being oppressed. In August 1992, the U.S. also established a no-fly zone in southern Iraq in order to protect Shiite muslins from persecution of Saddam's regime. Despite some questions about the legality and legitimacy, the two security measures might have served to prevent more serious humanitarian crises from happening.
It might be because of the success of the above-mentioned experiences that external military intervention has been worshiped as a therapy for Middle Eastern security problems. Thereafter, external powers, particularly the U.S., were often requested to send troops to deal with regional issues. The U.S. was requested to bomb in order to solve the Iran nuclear issue, to bomb in order to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi's regime and to bomb as a means of solving the Syrian crisis. These requests actually serve the taste of the U.S. as a dominant power in the region despite its recent prudence.
Under this logic, it's easy to understand why external military intervention has been expected to defeat ISIS. It is true that military actions taken by external powers might be effective in destroying the forces and facilities and infrastructures of terrorist forces. The air strikes by external powers combined with the offenses on the land by local troops in particular have proved to be effective in regaining the territories controlled by ISIS. The recent retreat of ISIS in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq are both examples.
However, despite the above-mentioned successes, external military intervention does not necessarily represent a solution to the ISIS threat and the threats of other terrorist organizations. The reason lies in that the experience of dealing with conventional security issues cannot be applied for handling non-conventional security threats. During the Gulf War, the target was the regular troops of a nation state under the control of a regime, and the objective of the Gulf War was counter-invasion. The operation was stopped short when Iraq's troops were driven back.
It is true that ISIS does have some features of conventional security threats since they have quasi-regular troops with meaningful size. That's the reason why Russian and U.S. air strikes have really worked. However, these above-mentioned successes do not necessarily mean external military intervention will be a final solution to the ISIS threat and those posed by other terrorist organizations.
ISIS and other terrorist organizations actually have more features of non-conventional security threats. They are actually rooted in vulnerable economic and social conditions and armed with an extremist religious ideology. Military intervention might be effective in destroying its physical existence, but cannot destroy its non-physical features. These ideologies and mentalities and their networking mechanisms are in fact bomb-proof.
The most effective way, I believe, might be in cutting off the channels that ISIS depends on for arms supply, oil smuggling, finance, and also internet systems, by which ISIS has been able to reach and recruit younger people beyond the region. All these actions actually demand joint efforts from regional countries. It is urgently necessary to develop a kind of coordination among regional powers along borders with regard to internet, infrastructure and financial control. A regional framework or mechanism is desperately needed to deal with issues.
The above-mentioned measures, even if proved to be successful, can only cure the symptoms. In the long term, measures will have to be taken to address the employment deficit problems. The purpose should be to keep young people employed. Otherwise, they will go to the streets and battlefields.
All in all, external military intervention can be effective in some ways, but is far from being a cure. Development will be the final wayout.
Last but not least, military intervention by external powers should be regarded as positive generally, but the potential negative effects are profound. These major external powers can be regarded as seriously fighting against terrorism, but they are also fighting for their own geopolitical influence in the region. The conflicts between them now and after the demise of ISIS will be a serious problem for the Middle East.
External military intervention truly has served to maintain regional order in the 1990s and to prevent serious humanitarian problems from taking place. In 1991, the multi-national forces led by the U.S. and authorized by the UN Security Council launched a military campaign, which drove Saddam Hussein's forces back to Iraq. That operation not only restored Kuwait's sovereignty but also protected the UN principle of no change of borders by military means.
On April 5, 1991, U.S., Britain and France established a security zone in Iraq's Kurdish region to protect Kurds from being oppressed. In August 1992, the U.S. also established a no-fly zone in southern Iraq in order to protect Shiite muslins from persecution of Saddam's regime. Despite some questions about the legality and legitimacy, the two security measures might have served to prevent more serious humanitarian crises from happening.
It might be because of the success of the above-mentioned experiences that external military intervention has been worshiped as a therapy for Middle Eastern security problems. Thereafter, external powers, particularly the U.S., were often requested to send troops to deal with regional issues. The U.S. was requested to bomb in order to solve the Iran nuclear issue, to bomb in order to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi's regime and to bomb as a means of solving the Syrian crisis. These requests actually serve the taste of the U.S. as a dominant power in the region despite its recent prudence.
Under this logic, it's easy to understand why external military intervention has been expected to defeat ISIS. It is true that military actions taken by external powers might be effective in destroying the forces and facilities and infrastructures of terrorist forces. The air strikes by external powers combined with the offenses on the land by local troops in particular have proved to be effective in regaining the territories controlled by ISIS. The recent retreat of ISIS in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq are both examples.
However, despite the above-mentioned successes, external military intervention does not necessarily represent a solution to the ISIS threat and the threats of other terrorist organizations. The reason lies in that the experience of dealing with conventional security issues cannot be applied for handling non-conventional security threats. During the Gulf War, the target was the regular troops of a nation state under the control of a regime, and the objective of the Gulf War was counter-invasion. The operation was stopped short when Iraq's troops were driven back.
It is true that ISIS does have some features of conventional security threats since they have quasi-regular troops with meaningful size. That's the reason why Russian and U.S. air strikes have really worked. However, these above-mentioned successes do not necessarily mean external military intervention will be a final solution to the ISIS threat and those posed by other terrorist organizations.
ISIS and other terrorist organizations actually have more features of non-conventional security threats. They are actually rooted in vulnerable economic and social conditions and armed with an extremist religious ideology. Military intervention might be effective in destroying its physical existence, but cannot destroy its non-physical features. These ideologies and mentalities and their networking mechanisms are in fact bomb-proof.
The most effective way, I believe, might be in cutting off the channels that ISIS depends on for arms supply, oil smuggling, finance, and also internet systems, by which ISIS has been able to reach and recruit younger people beyond the region. All these actions actually demand joint efforts from regional countries. It is urgently necessary to develop a kind of coordination among regional powers along borders with regard to internet, infrastructure and financial control. A regional framework or mechanism is desperately needed to deal with issues.
The above-mentioned measures, even if proved to be successful, can only cure the symptoms. In the long term, measures will have to be taken to address the employment deficit problems. The purpose should be to keep young people employed. Otherwise, they will go to the streets and battlefields.
All in all, external military intervention can be effective in some ways, but is far from being a cure. Development will be the final wayout.
Last but not least, military intervention by external powers should be regarded as positive generally, but the potential negative effects are profound. These major external powers can be regarded as seriously fighting against terrorism, but they are also fighting for their own geopolitical influence in the region. The conflicts between them now and after the demise of ISIS will be a serious problem for the Middle East.
Source of documents:China.org.cn