Donald Trump’s recent claim that his opponent in the US presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Barack Obama founded Daesh is vicious nonsense. But it is also an ironic charge for Trump to make: If anyone in the United States is helping Daesh, it is he.
In a recent speech on foreign policy, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee laid out a supposed plan for defeating Daesh that, in classic Trump fashion, overflowed with contradictions and inconsistencies, even as it failed to provide specifics and facts. While offering utterly unworkable recommendations — such as making immigrants from Muslim countries take an ideological screening test before entering the United States — he attempted to present himself as a realist, and the only person who can save US foreign policy.
Central to Trump’s “realistic” approach is the use of far more military force in Syria than the Obama administration has employed. Trump declares that this approach would “crush and destroy” Daesh. In fact, such a military intervention would amount to pouring gasoline on a raging fire.
Of course, Trump doesn’t understand that. Despite his self-satisfied declarations that he knows more about Daesh than America’s generals do, he is utterly oblivious to the complex dynamics of today’s institutional fragility, creeping sectarianism, and wars in the Middle East, fueled by the rivalry among global powers. And, as his claims about Clinton and Obama show, he has no idea how or from where Daesh emerged.
This is not to say that western — and, in particular, American — foreign policy hasn’t played a key role. The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq ruptured an already fragile Iraqi society, destroyed local institutions, including the army and the ruling Baath party, and unleashed a violent sectarian power struggle. In effect, it created space for militant groups — first Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and now Daesh, an extension of Al-Qaeda with a more effective military apparatus led by former Iraqi army officers. Something similar happened in Syria, after popular protests erupted in 2011 against President Bashar Assad’s regime. Inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, Syrians took to the streets, undoubtedly hoping for more freedom and representation in government.
But Assad, enjoying Iran’s unwavering support, refused to back down, and tried to suppress the uprising with brute force. Syria descended into a civil war that demolished state institutions and deepened the sectarian divide. Islamist militants seized the opportunity to expand their ranks by targeting an angry, desperate and relatively young population, largely from rural areas, for recruitment.
Exploiting this deepening Sunni-Shiite divide, Daesh recruiters and leaders present themselves as defenders of all true Muslims against Islam’s supposed ideological and religious enemies, including the West. Trump seems to have fallen for that rhetoric.
By characterizing the fight against Daesh as a Cold War-style ideological struggle, Trump not only reduces a complex crisis to a binary narrative; he recites from the same script that Daesh recruiters are using to attract support. Unsurprisingly, ordinary Muslims, who wholeheartedly reject Daesh’s nihilistic ideology, are condemning Trump’s simplistic rhetoric, which fuels Islamophobia. But, for Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Daesh’s self-appointed emir, and his associates, Trump’s campaign is music to their ears.
It gets worse. By comparing the fight against Daesh to the struggle against the Soviet Union, Trump elevates the terrorist organization to the status of a great power. This contributes to perceptions that Daesh is much more potent than it actually is, again playing into the hands of Daesh recruiters.
Trump has also expressed his interest in cooperating with Russia to take down Daesh, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Russia’s involvement in Syria is focused on propping up Assad’s regime. Such a partnership could lead Trump to make a deal with Iran. Tehran is now permitting Russian long-range bombers to using one of its air bases to strike Syria, complicating Obama’s already-strenuous effort to reach an understanding with Russian President Vladimir Putin on ending the civil war. Trump has also voiced an interest in working with Assad to defeat Daesh.
Efforts by external actors to keep Assad in power infuriate many Syrians and other Sunni Muslims, creating even more fertile ground for Daesh recruiters. If the US began forging closer cooperation with the countries leading that charge (Russia, Iran, and now China, which has begun training Syrian forces), the situation would deteriorate further.
It is time for the US to align itself with the hopes and aspirations of young Muslims who dream of a better future. This requires a major diplomatic and social investment by the US and the international community to help put out the raging fires in the Middle East, rebuild broken state institutions, and establish national unity governments. The last thing the Middle East needs is another round of reckless US foreign policy. That is exactly what Trump would offer.
—
The writer is Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. ©Project Syndicate
In a recent speech on foreign policy, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee laid out a supposed plan for defeating Daesh that, in classic Trump fashion, overflowed with contradictions and inconsistencies, even as it failed to provide specifics and facts. While offering utterly unworkable recommendations — such as making immigrants from Muslim countries take an ideological screening test before entering the United States — he attempted to present himself as a realist, and the only person who can save US foreign policy.
Central to Trump’s “realistic” approach is the use of far more military force in Syria than the Obama administration has employed. Trump declares that this approach would “crush and destroy” Daesh. In fact, such a military intervention would amount to pouring gasoline on a raging fire.
Of course, Trump doesn’t understand that. Despite his self-satisfied declarations that he knows more about Daesh than America’s generals do, he is utterly oblivious to the complex dynamics of today’s institutional fragility, creeping sectarianism, and wars in the Middle East, fueled by the rivalry among global powers. And, as his claims about Clinton and Obama show, he has no idea how or from where Daesh emerged.
This is not to say that western — and, in particular, American — foreign policy hasn’t played a key role. The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq ruptured an already fragile Iraqi society, destroyed local institutions, including the army and the ruling Baath party, and unleashed a violent sectarian power struggle. In effect, it created space for militant groups — first Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and now Daesh, an extension of Al-Qaeda with a more effective military apparatus led by former Iraqi army officers. Something similar happened in Syria, after popular protests erupted in 2011 against President Bashar Assad’s regime. Inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, Syrians took to the streets, undoubtedly hoping for more freedom and representation in government.
But Assad, enjoying Iran’s unwavering support, refused to back down, and tried to suppress the uprising with brute force. Syria descended into a civil war that demolished state institutions and deepened the sectarian divide. Islamist militants seized the opportunity to expand their ranks by targeting an angry, desperate and relatively young population, largely from rural areas, for recruitment.
Exploiting this deepening Sunni-Shiite divide, Daesh recruiters and leaders present themselves as defenders of all true Muslims against Islam’s supposed ideological and religious enemies, including the West. Trump seems to have fallen for that rhetoric.
By characterizing the fight against Daesh as a Cold War-style ideological struggle, Trump not only reduces a complex crisis to a binary narrative; he recites from the same script that Daesh recruiters are using to attract support. Unsurprisingly, ordinary Muslims, who wholeheartedly reject Daesh’s nihilistic ideology, are condemning Trump’s simplistic rhetoric, which fuels Islamophobia. But, for Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Daesh’s self-appointed emir, and his associates, Trump’s campaign is music to their ears.
It gets worse. By comparing the fight against Daesh to the struggle against the Soviet Union, Trump elevates the terrorist organization to the status of a great power. This contributes to perceptions that Daesh is much more potent than it actually is, again playing into the hands of Daesh recruiters.
Trump has also expressed his interest in cooperating with Russia to take down Daesh, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Russia’s involvement in Syria is focused on propping up Assad’s regime. Such a partnership could lead Trump to make a deal with Iran. Tehran is now permitting Russian long-range bombers to using one of its air bases to strike Syria, complicating Obama’s already-strenuous effort to reach an understanding with Russian President Vladimir Putin on ending the civil war. Trump has also voiced an interest in working with Assad to defeat Daesh.
Efforts by external actors to keep Assad in power infuriate many Syrians and other Sunni Muslims, creating even more fertile ground for Daesh recruiters. If the US began forging closer cooperation with the countries leading that charge (Russia, Iran, and now China, which has begun training Syrian forces), the situation would deteriorate further.
It is time for the US to align itself with the hopes and aspirations of young Muslims who dream of a better future. This requires a major diplomatic and social investment by the US and the international community to help put out the raging fires in the Middle East, rebuild broken state institutions, and establish national unity governments. The last thing the Middle East needs is another round of reckless US foreign policy. That is exactly what Trump would offer.
—
The writer is Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. ©Project Syndicate
