Is Iraq Winning The War Against ISIS?

“The strongest of all warriors are these two - Time and Patience.” - Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

The Iraqi Army Marching Into Ramadi

The campaign to defeat the so-called "Islamic State" (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has come under increased scrutiny in the wake of recent ISIS inspired attacks in Paris and California.  Politicians (and presidential candidates especially) have been particularly critical of the U.S.-led effort, describing it as slow and ineffective.  However, recent gains by the Iraqi army against ISIS-held positions are beginning to show the strengths of this initiative.  Just this week, the Iraqi army succeeded in retaking the strategic (and symbolically important) city of Ramadi from ISIS fighters.  This week, we re-evaluate the ISIS strategy and take a look at the battles still to come in this brutal war.

So what is the current strategy being employed by the American-led coalition and the Iraqi government?  Since the fall of Mosul in the summer of 2014 (which involved the embarrassing retreat of the Iraqi military forces), the United States has worked closely with the Iraqi government to rebuild and retrain its military forces.  This is drastically different from the effort to train moderate Syrian rebel forces in Syria (which has largely failed to produce an effective fighting force).  The Iraqi army has begun to succeed in its ground campaign against ISIS, while American (and allied) forces have bombed targets and provided substantial intelligence support.  The United States is also waging a similar strategy with the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq (who are all but independent from the central Iraqi government).  Though not directly working together, these forces are largely focusing on the fight against ISIS and rather than on their own personal political grievances.

An ISIS Compound Being Bombed

The liberation of Ramadi marks a significant milestone in the fight.  It is also part of a series of victories in recent months.  The Iraqi army has retaken nearly half of ISIS held territory and liberated cities like Tikrit, Kobani, and many others throughout Iraq.  Ramadi itself is important in part because of it's position near Iraq's capital Baghdad, and the ISIS-held stronghold of Falljuah.  Just as important is the political significance of Ramadi as the capital of Iraq's Sunni Anbar province.  Winning the support of the Sunni population is key to eliminating ISIS and creating a stable Iraq.  The Iraqi army, who all but abandoned the fight a year ago, is now behaving like a capable and disciplined military force.  In all, ISIS appears to be on the losing side of this fight.

But the war is far from over.  Taking Ramadi is one thing, holding this territory and bringing the fight to other besieged cities is another matter.  ISIS has dug into its positions in Fallujah and Mosul.  Mosul, the administrative "capital" of the Islamic State houses a population of over two million people (many of whom actually support ISIS).  ISIS left a provisional force behind to defend Ramadi (enough to slow their advance, plant explosives, and probably launch an insurgency), but they still maintain an estimated fighting force of several thousand.  The government will also have to provide an enticing political alternative to ISIS control in order to have any chance of preventing ISIS from returning.  Maintaining the peace in a region of intense sectarian differences is problematic.  The ability to hold Ramadi is key, and doing this without upsetting the Sunnis will be critically important. Finally, ISIS still holds significant territory (and the city of Raqqa) in Syria.  Tackling that issue poses an entirely different set of problems.

Though many have criticized the Obama administration for its strategy, few have offered meaningful solutions or drastically different policies.  One of the most extreme alternatives is that the United States should recommit its regular military forces into a ground battle against ISIS.  This strategy, though bold and emotionally appealing, would drastically complicate the long-term prospects for a stable Iraq.  The American military would need to regain the trust of both the Sunni tribes (who felt betrayed by the American backed Shia government) and the Shia (who criticize the United States for not showing enough support).  This is to say nothing of the fact that the Iraqi government has completely rejected the idea of a full American invasion (making the effort illegal in the eyes of international law).  As stated before in this blog, we often overemphasize the ability of the American military to complete all of its objectives.  Though militarily crushing ISIS in Mosul would certainly be achieved, a complete re-invasion would completely eliminate the fragile alliances being forced among moderate forces in Iraq.  In short, we could win the battle, but would almost certainly lose the war.

Everyone's A Critic

But we shouldn't make this all about us.  The real heroes of this fight are the Iraqi and Kurdish forces who are fighting and dying to retake their homelands.  So far, the Iraqi military estimates that it has lost over 6,000 fighters in the war against ISIS, while the Kurds report at least 1,300 casualties in their battle against ISIS in northern Iraq.  Though allied airstrikes and intelligence have proven to be very helpful, the bulk of the sacrifice is being made by Iraqis, for Iraqis.  With any luck, this war can help to bring Iraq's moderate elements together against a force which represents the worst of Iraq's problems.  The sacrifices made and alliances formed during this conflict have a much better chance of producing lasting peace than an American-imposed government.

Didn't Work So Well The First Time

In all, progress is slow, but it is still progress.  We can't let a couple of desperate attacks against in recent months trick us into making a big strategic mistake.  There is certainly room for improvement in this fight, and suggestions to deploy small forces in limited roles aren't completely ridiculous, but let's not pretend that America's allies are still losing this war.  ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the country or to Americans, but it does to the Iraqis and their land.  Ultimately, this is their fight, not ours.  

TL;DR: The Iraqi military (yes that's a real thing) is showing strong signs of improvement in the fight against ISIS.  America needs to be patient and stay the course.

One Small Step For (Wo)man In Saudi Arabia

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - President John Quincy Adams.

Formerly: Vote AND Die In Saudi Arabia

This past week, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia held municipal elections.  Given that the Kingdom is known for it's position as one of the last remaining absolute monarchies in the world, this development is somewhat remarkable.  Even more remarkable was the participation for the first time of women in the political process.  In all, nearly twenty women were elected to local positions in municipal government throughout the country.  Saudi Arabia is well-known for it's lack of women's rights (and basic representational government for that matter).  So are these elections a turning point for women in Saudi Arabia, or just a sham to make the Kingdom look good?

Saudi Women Registering To Vote

Since it's founding in 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been ruled by an absolute monarchy controlled by the Saudi royal family.  The royal family contains around seven thousand people, many of whom are appointed to key government positions by the King (currently King Salman).  Citizens are sometimes allowed to petition the King on Saudi policy, but for the most part citizens have no real say in their government, human rights practices, or domestic and foreign policy.  From a Western perspective, this type of absolute control seems unsustainable.  After all, why would people support a government they can't change?  The answer lies in Saudi Arabia's vast petroleum wealth.  The country is able to provide the means of employment and success for nearly all of its citizens, so they often see few reasons to upset the status quo unless their quality of life decreases. 

Luckily Oil Lasts Forever!

So the recent elections have now included women in the political process.  This is a (small) step towards improving women's rights, but there are still vast differences and inequalities.  For instance, women cannot drive and usually need a male escort to go out in public.  Saudi society typically relegates a woman's role to maintaining the household and refraining from public life.  What drives this extreme conservatism?  Saudi Arabia adheres to an extremely strict form of Islam known as Wahhabism.  Named after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, this interpretation takes an extremely literal interpretation of the original texts of the Qu'ran and the examples of the prophet Muhammad.  While most other interpretations of Islam also highly regard these sources, most of them attempt to view their messages within the context of the time they were written.  Since these sources are over 1,500 years old, literal interpretations can seem very out of date in a modern context.  The Saudi family formed a strong alliance with al-Wahhab in the 1700s, and this partnership has lasted ever since. 

Scandalous!

However most other Arab and Muslim countries are not nearly as strict.  Some have nearly equal rights for women and have more representational systems of government.  They have also adopted much milder interpretations of Islam (and some are completely secular).  It is important to remember  that Islam originally gave women far more rights then they had enjoyed in the centuries before Muhammad.  The first Muslim community actively worked toward a more equal system (though there were still massive differences by modern standards).  It was generally assumed that men served public roles while women served in private life, but equal importance was to be given to each role.  Unfortunately, some interpretations seem to have lost sight of this original breakthrough in women's rights.

Still, the situation of women is gradually improving in the Kingdom.  Women are increasingly finding roles in professional careers and attending schools at an unprecedented level.  In Saudi society, women's rights are just one section of a much larger change in traditional society which challenges the well-established political/religious order.  There is also increased scrutiny on Saudi Arabia's flagrant human rights violations and its policy toward migrant workers.  Plenty of Saudis would like to see more rapid change, but since the government provides nearly all of the keys to success in the country, many often don't see much of a need for (or way to create) changes such as widespread representational government (why change what seems to be working for most people?). 

Polls Showing Support For Women's Rights

In all, this is a modest (though very positive) development for women's rights in the Kingdom.  Though a completely representational government for all citizens (both men and women) would seem ideal from a Western perspective, it would be disingenuous to assume that all countries should adopt our form of democracy (after all, look what that thinking created in Iraq).  Still, there are standards of equality of fair treatment which ought to transcend political ideologies.  A socially,economically, and politically active female workforce is a positive development for the Kingdom's continued growth.  It may be a small step, but to many women in Saudi Arabia, it could become a key turning point.

TL;DR: Women now have about as much political influence as men in Saudi Arabia.  Which isn't that much to begin with.

What Is Sharia Law? ...And Why Is It Always Creeping?

"Well I think this whole notion that somehow we need to say no more Muslims and just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean religious freedom’s been a very important part of our, our history." former Vice President Dick Cheney

Coming To A Supreme Court Near You? (Not Really)

As could only be expected following the (likely) terrorist attack in California last week, the debate over Muslims in American culture has been reignited with predictable veracity.  Some presidential candidates have even gone so far as to suggest that all Muslims be monitored and banned from entering the country.  This is, of course, completely ridiculous and in direct violation of America's founding principles (even Dick Cheney agrees!).  However, others have taken issue with a perceived threat from Islamic law (known collectively as Sharia), believing that America's Muslim population is attempting to make Washington look more like Riyadh.  This week, let's take a look at the reality of Sharia law in America.

That's Where Riyadh Is By The Way

First, it should be strongly noted that Sharia law is not a single, codified set of laws which can be easily and authoritatively referenced for every situation.  Like many other legal systems, it draws from a central set of general precedents, but leaves significant room for interpretation.   Generally speaking, Sharia law draws heavily from the Sunna (reported sayings and examples of the prophet Muhammad), but also contains elements of other ancient legal systems and practices.  There are four main schools of Sunni Islamic thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) and one main school of Shia Islamic thought (Ja'fari).  All of these place a different emphasis on the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), the Qur'an, and previous rulings by early Islamic scholars. 

The Main Schools Of Islamic Jurisprudence Throughout The World

But Sharia is more than just communal legal decisions. A large number of decisions found in the various interpretations of Sharia deal with family and personal life. The word Sharia is derived from the Arabic word for "way" or "path," and is typically used as a guideline for living a virtuous life.  Instructions on personal relationships, prayer habits, and dietary restrictions are the primary emphasis of Sharia practices among most Muslims.  This would include behaviors that are generally considered obligatory (giving of charity), encouraged, discouraged, and forbidden (consumption of pork or alcohol).

But It Tastes So Good!

So why is everyone so afraid of Sharia?  Aside from the general trend of Islamophobia, most people (incorrectly) equate the above mentioned examples with the rigid Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia found in Saudi Arabia (and to an even greater extent in ISIS controlled territory).  Though certainly among the most strict forms of legal jurisprudence in the world, even this has been somewhat mis-characterized.  For instance, though the strictest interpretation for the crime of theft (in the Wahhabi tradition) is the removal of a hand, it is often forgotten that this punishment is almost never carried out in Saudi Arabia.  And to prove adultery, for instance, requires at least four witnesses to the act itself.  This is an intentionally difficult burden of proof, which is often the point of the more strict interpretations. 

Still, such punishments are certainly considered cruel and unusual.  Thus, they are almost all completely incompatible with America's case law system.  Any judge with even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence knows that most interpretations of Sharia law (in addition to other less-common forms of legal precedent) would be subordinate to proven and established legal methods of American jurisprudence.  Furthermore, the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of religiously based legal interpretations when they directly contradict American laws and legal precedent.

Don't Worry, This Is Still The Ultimate Law Of The Land

What does "Sharia" actually look like in America?  Typically it takes the form of local councils or private courts which can use some interpretations of Sharia precedent (obviously not the extreme stuff) in family and personal court cases.  In this way, there seem to be a couple limited areas in which some interpretations of Sharia could (theoretically) apply.  For the most part, this would take the form of private civil disputes involving Muslim family members or two Muslim parties.  In these cases, councils would be convened to use established precedents of inheritance, divorce, or other personal matters to resolve disputes (but only if both parties consent to this process).  This is, by and large, the only real possibility of Sharia law being enacted in the United States.  Finally, it should also be noted that Christian and Jewish courts have also operated within the bounds of the American legal system for decades.  They have already established how religiously based legal systems can work within the American system (and have mostly defined the limits of such inclusion).

Most Muslim Countries Only Apply Sharia In Civil Matters

In all, the "battle" over Sharia law in America is predominantly meant to fan the flames of Islamophobia and fear of a perceived loss of "Christian" values in this country.  Almost nobody is seriously considering a Wahhabi-style legal system where apostates are stoned in the street.  However, there may be some room for religiously based precedents to influence private matters between consenting parties in a case (where many would argue the government has no place anyway).  Most importantly, let's remember that the people living in or migrating to the United States from Muslim countries are usually trying to escape the more oppressive forms of Sharia in their homeland, not trying to bring it with them. 

TL;DR: Sharia encompasses a very wide variety of laws and rules and cannot be reduced into one coherent system.  There is absolutely no chance of it taking over the American legal system.