The End of ISIS

One of the most prevalent questions being asked about foreign operations is: what should the United States do in terms of foreign operations after ISIS?  Should we get directly involved with our allies?  Back out entirely?  Supply foreign aid?  Many arguments have been made for all of these potential solutions, but I believe the best one is to remain involved as a neutral power and help to move unstable countries toward stability, lower tensions between fighting countries, and helping to provide aid when we can.

In Robert Malley’s piece “The War After the War,” in Foreign Policy, he argues that, for most US allies in the Middle East, the war against ISIS was never really the biggest concern.  After ISIS is defeated/withers out, countries in the Middle East will return to previous conflicts such as Turkey against the Kurds, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s regional contest, competition between Quatar and Turkey and Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, etc.  Malley argues that when conflict surrounding ISIS has disappeared, “Washington will confront a Middle East struggling with familiar demons.  It will also face its own familiar dilemma: How deeply should it get involved?”  Allies will try to appeal to Donald Trump’s agenda to convince him to leap into action on their behalf.  This, Malley argues, “would be a losing bet” for Washington.  However, so would withdrawing completely.  As a world superpower, it would not be a good idea to completely retreat from the Middle East and abandon our allies in the area, with whom our relationships are very important. Instead, Malley argues, “The optimal way to secure U.S. interests in a post-Islamic State world is not to join or intensify conflicts over which it has little ultimate say and that would unleash the very chaos and sectarianism from which the terrorist group was born and on which it thrives. It is to de-escalate proxy wars, broker a Saudi-Qatari deal, press for an end to the Yemen war, stick to a measured stance toward political Islam, and lower tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran — indeed, for that matter, between the United States and Iran.”  The United States should serve as a buffer in conflicts to help aid peace in the Middle East instead of taking sides on behalf of our allies and participating in the conflicts directly.

One piece I would add to this is the importance of the United States assisting in aid.  Both because of our reputation and our abilities, it would be a mistake to withdraw aid to foreign countries (or to refuse to give it in the first place).  This threatens both our reputation worldwide and our relationships with our allies.  Sacrificing these to make some sort of political statement about putting America first would be a huge mistake on our part.

While this is certainly not an uncomplicated solution, it is the best both for the United States and the Middle East in the long run.  Not directly supporting our allies certainly comes with its own issues, but getting directly involved in long-existing conflicts in the Middle East would be extremely detrimental.