Blog: What is the State of Islamic Extremism?

Statement

Fascinating hearing today on Armed Services committee: "What is the State of Islamic Extremism?" Testimony from William Braniff, Executive Director National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, LTG Michael Flynn, USA (ret.) Former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency and Dr. Marc Lynch Professor at George Washington University.

Some takeaways:

LTG Flynn calls for a World War 2 and/or Cold War level of engagement lasting "decades" with Islamic extremists. He also cautioned us against approving an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) until there is a "clear, comprehensive" strategy from the Administration (I haven't seen one, have you?). But perhaps his most interesting comments centered on the governance of Middle East states and the fact that corruption and repression and failure to adhere to international law and global norms have created the conditions that allow for the rise of Isis, Al-Qaida, and other Islamic extremist organizations. His point: these governments are our allies -- until we ensure there are consequences for their poor governance then we will further perpetuate the problem. He challenged us to have the courage of our values and see the larger interest of the region and possibly cut ties with those who do not reform.

Dr. Lynch cautioned against an overly simplistic response to Islamic extremism and provided some of the historical and cultural context for ISIS and our challenges in the Middle East. My colleague Tulsi Gabbard asked a good question about whether or not we should continue with the fiction that Iraq, and perhaps Syria, are salvageable countries. And whether we should instead assist in the formation of autonomous regions or new States, which provide homelands for the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish populations there. Lynch argued that some kind of federal system is still needed and that creating a Sunni homeland is exactly what Isis is doing right now. I would argue that while that might be true, it shouldn't in itself poison the idea and perhaps 100-years after Sykes-Picot it's time to acknowledge that the lines don't work, and the people of the Middle East should be allowed self-determination, peaceful if at all possible.

Could not have been a more timely hearing, considering that Congress will soon make a decision on whether to support an AUMF in Iraq and Syria. Do we have the stomach and the discipline (and perhaps the national interest) to enter into a Cold War/WW2 level of aggression in the Middle East lasting decades? Do we have the willpower to divorce our interests from those allies who lead corrupt regimes (Iraq and Afghanistan) or weak states (Yemen) or repressive monarchies that institutionalize intolerance (Saudi Arabia)?

Can we win militarily? Can we even define what winning looks like?

Source