The Power of Peacebuilding

THE PEACE MOVEMENT needs a stronger response to the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It is not enough merely to oppose deepening U.S. military involvement. We must also identify viable diplomatic and political options for countering the ISIS danger and reducing violence in the region.

President Obama has said there is no military solution to the crisis in Iraq, but his administration has relied heavily on bombing as its main response to ISIS. Since August, the United States and about a dozen other states have launched more than 1,900 air strikes against ISIS and militant groups in Iraq and Syria. Approximately 80 percent of the strikes have been conducted by U.S. forces, mostly jet fighters but also armed drones. The strikes have had the effect of halting further ISIS encroachments into Iraq and have enabled Kurdish fighters to regain some ground in the northern part of Iraq. In Syria, however, ISIS reportedly has continued to gain ground despite the U.S.-led attacks.

U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Syria is having unintended effects that could make matters worse. Battling the United States gives ISIS a transcendent objective beyond its political agenda in Iraq and Syria and distracts local attention from its brutal policies. It allows ISIS to portray itself as the victim and to claim that it is defending Islam from Western attack. After the start of airstrikes in August, support for the group increased. The strikes in Syria have also targeted the al Nusra Front and have generated pressure for rival groups to close ranks. Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS has not declared war on the United States, but it may now rethink its strategic focus and plan attacks on the “far enemy,” to use al Qaeda’s term.

Overcoming the threat posed by ISIS cannot be achieved by military means. What’s needed is a comprehensive strategy that addresses the underlying conditions that have led to the rise of ISIS and related extremist groups. ISIS is an outgrowth of the Syrian civil war and of U.S. intervention and the subsequent civil conflict within Iraq. ISIS has grown by attracting the support of Sunni Arab communities fighting the Assad regime in Damascus and resisting repression by the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad. Overcoming ISIS will require policies that end these originating conflicts. In Syria this means a renewed diplomatic push to end the civil war and achieve a negotiated political settlement. In Iraq it means forging more-inclusive governance in Baghdad and addressing the grievances of Sunni Arab communities.

Achieving diplomatic and political solutions will require cooperation with other states, especially Russia and Iran. Despite their sharp differences, the United States and Russia share a common interest in suppressing ISIS and ending the war in Syria. Moscow has substantial influence with Damascus, as evidenced by its success in convincing the Syrian government to abandon its chemical weapons, and it can help bring the regime to the bargaining table. Russia has criticized the U.S. demand for the Assad regime to step down as a precondition for negotiations as unrealistic militarily and an obstacle to diplomacy. More than three years of brutal fighting seem to confirm Moscow’s assessment. The war has become a grinding stalemate between the Assad regime and its supporters on the one side and the extremist forces of ISIS and the al Nusra Front on the other. The moderate groups backed by the U.S. are weak and divided and have little influence. The goal of eventually removing the murderous Assad regime remains valid, but to require this at the outset of talks is a nonstarter.

Achieving a diplomatic solution will also require engaging with Iran, which has significant leverage with both Syria and Iraq. Despite their many differences, Washington and Tehran agree on the need to end the war in Syria and counter the threat from ISIS. Rather than excluding Iran from U.N. negotiations as it has done in the past, Washington should welcome Tehran to the table. Iran is the only neighboring state with enough influence in Damascus and Baghdad to apply effective pressure for political compromise.

Establishing cooperation with Iran will be difficult for the Obama administration, given the hostility to Iran of many members of Congress. Any movement toward engagement will probably depend on a successful outcome of negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program. Regardless of the outcome of those talks, the security benefits of working with Tehran to end the war in Syria could be huge.

The challenges and uncertainties in attempting to implement the proposed diplomatic and political strategies are enormous. If the United States were to devote as much effort to these approaches as it does to military measures, the chances of success would increase. The current U.S. policy of bombing ISIS and sending more weapons and military advisers to the region will only prolong the fighting. Groups like ISIS thrive on war. To diminish their power requires reducing the level of armed violence and addressing the political grievances they exploit. Peacebuilding strategies offer the greatest promise for effectively countering ISIS.