Saturday’s terrorist attack on Paris is having ramifications far and wide. What impact will it have for Europe and the Middle East in the near term? What’s the correct response to these acts of terror? What effects will the Paris tragedy have on the U.S. presidential campaign?
We asked two faculty members to weigh in. Dr. Jabbar Al-Obaidi is professor of media studies & communication technologies and director of the Center for Middle East Studies. Dr. Brian Frederick is an associate professor of political science and the department chairman.
Here’s what they had to say, beginning with Professor Al-Obaidi.
Q: In your opinion, does the attack on France mark a turning point in the war on terror?
A: As my thoughts and solidarity go out to the families of the victims and the French people, I argue that the barbaric attacks by the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ISIS (Daesh in Arabic) should not be seen as a sign of strength for ISIS. On the contrary, it is a hysterical and frantic criminal act resulting directly from the persistent pressures put on ISIS by the airpower of the United State and its allies in the region. ISIS is desperate to send a message to its supporters in the region and abroad that they are still able to call the shots. Indeed, the coordinated Friday attacks in Paris marks a turning point in the war against terror in Syria and Iraq. It’s a game changer for several strategic reasons. Firstly, although the French airplanes have been part of the coalition for some time now, they were reluctant to hit targets in Syria. After the attacks, they began to strike critical targets in Raqqa, the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Syria. Secondly, the vicious attacks on Parisians provided yet another significant public cause for the countries in the region to stand with France and to support the American efforts to weaken and ultimately destroy ISIS. Thirdly, the terrorist attacks have redefined and clearly reshaped dimensions of ISIS as an international terrorist organization and network, and not a local or regional one as previously thought. Finally, it brought the leaders of the free world and their regional allies to work together and to share information and resources.
Q: Is bombing the ISIS stronghold, which France has been doing, a good idea?
A: It’s rather a bit late to do so. Striking carefully selected targets in the center of ISIS stronghold in Raqqa and other areas controlled by ISIS, including Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq, will yield three results: cause a distribution within the ISIS organization apparatus, gradually dislodge its so-called social incubators, and facilitate the advancement of the oppositions in Syria, and the Kurdish and Iraqi forces in Iraq. However, the bombing of the ISIS stronghold should be sustained. Otherwise, any hastened but unsustainable efforts would not bring a drastic change on the ground.
Q: Was/is the U.S. policy toward ISIS of containment wise?
A: There are two interpretations of the term containment. If you’re talking for example about the forced retreats by ISIS in Tikrit, Baiji, and just few days ago in Sinjar, then you could say that ISIS is relatively being contained in Iraq. But, it’s still active and its forces are left in a position to fight back and may be able reclaim the lost areas. But containment as a strategic policy (Policy of Containment, POC) toward ISIS has failed and it won’t work. ISIS is an extremely radical organization and is ideologically and mentally prepared to destroy anything belonging to the modern world. The beheadings, killings, rapes, and massacres against Yazidis and Christians, Sunni and Shiite Muslims over the last two years are strong evidence and speak loudly to the letdown of the policy of containment. The POC could and would not defeat and eliminate ISIS/Daesh in the near or far future.
Q: What should the U.S. do at this point as a next step?
A: I think the U.S. has and will continue to have many options in the Middle East. The whole region of the Middle East is looking for the U.S. to show its leadership, utilizing its political and logistical vision, mutual respects, and military capabilities. Hence, as a starting step, the U.S. should convene a regional summit in Amman or Riyadh and share its strategic vision and pragmatic plan for the purpose of defeating and eliminating ISIS. As of now, many leaders in the region are unclear as to what the U.S. strategy is. For instance, Iraqis and Syrians are not thrilled when they hear talk of portioning their countries as a solution for what’s going on in the region. Or that the 1916 Sykes Picot agreement should be abandoned. People in the region raise this question: Isn’t this precisely what ISIS is striving for? Building a stronger trust with the people and leaders of the region constitutes the next step.
Professor Frederick addressed the impacts the attacks in France will likely have on the U.S. presidential race and gauged the responses from the candidates.
Q: What is the immediate impact of the attacks?
A: I think obviously it has reawakened the political consciousness to the idea that terrorism and national security issues are still very important, and that was certainly reflected in the Democratic debate on Saturday.
Q: How have the candidates generally responded?
A: I think the candidates are kind of struggling to strike a note that indicates they want to address the issue in a meaningful way, but at the same time to not offer simplistic answers. This has kept them from making too many firm declarations about what the U.S. should do.
Q: Some have spoken out. How did they come across?
A: I think the republican candidates have been pretty outspoken in condemning President Obama’s foreign policy, in general, and specifically, his handling of the Syrian civil war. But they’re not offering detailed responses about what they would do.
Q: Do you think the Paris attack will have a major impact next November when Americans go to the polls?
A: I don’t think it will have a major impact on the 2016 presidential election. It will occupy some space in the American mind, but our attention span is short. Unless something similar happens here, it will be a low priority for Americans in the election.
Q: Any thoughts on what the President should do in the wake of the attacks?
A: I think all of President Obama’s choices are difficult, politically and internationally. On the other hand, I think he also realizes there are pressure from within the U.S. to do more to potentially initiate a ground invasion or certainly at least participate in air strikes or the establishment of a no-fly zone. All this could backfire. Once the conflict emerges, if they don’t really beat back the threat there will be even more questions as to whether that strategy was the right one to follow.
Q: Does Congress have a role to play here?
A: I think Congress has really not accepted its role. The president has asked for renewed authorization to use force to combat overseas terrorism and they’ve kind of punted. We hear strong rhetoric coming out of Congress, but collectively they haven’t offered any kind of concrete of approach. In the post-Cold War years, presidents have taken the lead on foreign policy, but that doesn’t mean Congress should sit this one out. (Interviews by John Winters, G ’11, University News & Media)