Columnist Jack Davies argues we need to stay true to our values while navigating the fight against ISIS.
The world was shocked recently by a series of brutal bombings and attacks by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in both Paris and Beirut. The affected cities mourn and foreign countries weep for their fallen subjects across the sea. It is now for us who will grow old to decide what to do about it.
The obvious answer might be to take John McCrae’s advice from the poem “In Flanders Fields” to “take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high,” and make preparations for punitive war as so many have asked. I have sympathy for those who have asked this. It is natural to ask for revenge for the dead, and I can’t bring myself to condemn those people harshly as heartless chauvinists as those who demand ‘fierce peace advocacy’ might.
This column is primarily addressed to our pro-war citizens: I hope to explain why escalation of conflict is not necessary here and why we should meet these attacks with non-violence, and I hope to address your fears. I welcome your feedback.
Terrorism works by forcing nations to work in the interest of the terrorist group through acts of violent intimidation. In this case they want escalation and an increased Western anti-Muslim sentiment. You may ask, “why on earth do they want an escalation in the Syrian conflict and increased persecution of Muslims in the West?”
It’s simple. It’s about manpower: When Muslim countries see Western soldiers on the ground in a fellow Islamic nation, it gives groups like the Islamic State cause to say that they are fighting an anti-imperial and anti-western war, which broadens their appeal. That argument is made even more convincing when they see the populace of the intervening power chanting anti-Islamic slogans in the street. Western Islamophobia is a powerful recruiting tool for groups like ISIS, as young men of military age in Europe and the Americas grow up increasingly shunned away from the life of their nations, making them easy prey for extremist groups who promise them a better life. By boycotting mosque construction, placing blanket bans on Syrian refugees, demonstrating against Muslims and calling for troops on the ground, we are playing into the interests of the Islamic State.
Such tactics have been used before. Al-Qaeda planned 9/11 and Osama bin Laden wanted the invasion of Iraq for the same reasons. If we want to avenge our dead and the dead of our allies by defeating ISIS, we must respond by staying true to our values. We must promote Muslim civil engagement, the construction of mosques and the immigration of refugee populations from Syria and other ISIS controlled territories (with background checks, of course).
We must also keep our military actions in proportion to any violence we may have received. In doing so, we create conditions of national unity and tolerance — conditions that worsen the Islamic State’s military situation by denying them fresh recruits and ideological support. If we follow this advice, as well as continue our limited air war, we can create conditions where we can literally kill our enemies with kindness. If we escalate the conflict, we could be facing another 15 years of war.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and eating soup for the rest of their lives. Let’s resolve to avenge Paris and Beirut by defeating ISIS with our values, not render ourselves blind and toothless in their name. After all, the last thing we need are yet more white crosses on the sloping lawns of Arlington.
Jack Davies is a sophomore studying philosophy and the Honors Tutorial College Senator for Student Senate. Do you think that ISIS wants other countries to plan bans on Syrian refugees? Email him at jd814213@ohio.edu.
