The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Security Dilemma

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Background information
The concept of security dilemma
The dichotomy of security dilemma in contemporary world
Criticisms and responses
Conclusion and recommendations
References

Background information

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a religious extremist group that operates within Iraq and Syria. Although the group is largely unrecognized by other sovereign states and the international community, it continues to spread its ideals and aspirations on governance and political control in the Gulf region (Matthews, 2003). Since its inception in 1999, the extremist group has continued to uphold and propagate its desire for hegemony and control in the volatile region. Its core ideals emanate from radical Islamic teachings.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was preceded by an outfit known as Al-Qaida established in Iraq (AQI). AQI was very active in fighting against American presence in Iraq after the ouster and subsequent execution of former strongman Saddam Hussein (Matthews, 2003).

In 2006, the group joined other radical groups in order to resist the invasion of Iraq by American forces. Eventually, the insurgents morphed into well organized gangs that sought to seize political power and control by all means possible. Later on, AQI joined forces with the Mujahedeen Shura Council (MSC) in order to strengthen their influence in the region and beyond (Kostiner, 2009). Through intense consultation and collaboration, the MSC spearheaded eventual formation and proliferation of Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

During its reign, ISI controlled regions such as Nineveh, Kirkuk, Al Anbar, and other surrounding cities. By 2008, citizens were opposed to its leadership due to excessive oppression and unorthodox expression of power. The insurgents were known for their violent means of resisting authority. In essence, the extremist group had turned against the people who were its key pillar of existence in the region (Kostiner, 2009).

In April 2013, the group changed its identity in order to reinvent and strengthen its operations in the Gulf region. From that moment, the ISI became known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Through the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group managed to extend its networks and influence in the region. Most Iraqi citizens were supportive of the group because they were agitating for equality and fairness through formulation and implementation of better economic and social policies (Kaim, 2013).

During that period, there was widespread discrimination and unfair treatment of citizens. This reality necessitated urgent measures that sought to heighten the need for fairness, equality, and justice in various communities. Later on, the group joined civilian fighters in the Syrian Revolution. Group members felt that they had the responsibility to assist fighters and protestors in Syria as a gesture of solidarity and unison.

Through such activities, the Islamist group gained fame and recognition around the world. The group’s insurgents used the Syrian platform to popularize their global agenda and elicit attention from the international community and western powers (Kaim, 2013). The original objective of the group was to support and actualize the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq. Due to its active role in the Syrian civil uprising, the group widened its scope to include areas of Syria dominated by Sunni Muslims.

During its initial assault on Iraq and Syria, the militant group had ties with Al-Qaida. However, the two groups severed ties due to inconsistencies that emanated from power struggles and style of leadership. They also disagreed on fundamental areas of interest such as ideological inclination and mode of operation (Kaim, 2013). In June 2014, the group proclaimed its autonomy within Syria and Iraq.

Through its leadership, it announced key areas that were under its control and dominance. This declaration gave rise to a powerful caliphate that had a desire to seize power from the national governments in respective state entities. Consequently, the group changed its name to the Islamic State. This transformation ushered a long period of confrontation and engagement with local governments and the international community.

This gave rise to radicalism and political intolerance in different areas of engagement. The group considers itself as an authority with regard to religious matters that involve Muslim faithful around the world (Russell, 2006). Among their objectives is to institute political and economic control over regions and state entities that are inhabited by Muslims.

They seek to control countries such as Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Syria. According to the United Nations, the Islamic state is a terrorist group that does not espouse positive goals and intentions for humanity. The European Union also accuses the group of engaging in terrorist activities in Iraq, Syria, and other countries in the region (Garver & PIanin, 2014).

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have blamed the Islamic state for propagation of human rights violations such as ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity (Russell, 2006).

The concept of security dilemma

The security dilemma refers to a theoretical concept applied in international relations with regard to actions that seek to heighten and consolidate security within state entities. In most cases, security dilemma refers to the interplay of factors in relation to issues that revolve around cross-border security and defence. Sovereign nations strive to increase and merge military power and capability at all times (Pandey, 2014).

This accords them an opportunity to review and appraise their willingness to engage in regional and international efforts towards sustenance of peace and security. John Herz, a German scholar, played an integral role in demystifying the intricacies of security dilemma. In his text Political Realism and Political Idealism, he alludes to the spiral nature of security and international relations. According to him, both concepts are interrelated because they seek to address similar issues in the global arena (Pandey, 2014).

Hubert Butterfield, in his book History and Human Relations, underscores the importance of understanding the relationship between security and international relations. In order to understand the concept of security dilemma, it is important to appreciate that state entities are always struggling to guarantee security within their jurisdictions (Pandey, 2014).

In most cases, such internal efforts lead to insecurity and suspicion with regard to neighbouring state entities. The irony of security dilemma lies in the fact that individual states disregard their neighbours in pursuit of stability and cross-border harmony. On the contrary, such efforts do not yield positive results because they ingrain disdain and suspicion among state entities. Security dilemma often emanates from situations where countries feel threatened by developments in other countries.

Whenever countries increase their military prowess and capability, neighbouring states feel threatened by such developments (Mullen, 2014). This leads to tension and suspicion regarding the intentions of such developments. The most common example of security dilemma is the First World War.

In this case, European state entities felt the need for war because they felt threatened by security developments by neighbouring countries. They saw the move as a defence mechanism with regard to their security and sovereignty. On the other hand, Germany felt the need to secure its security, freedom, and integrity against interference by European states (Mullen, 2014).

According to international relations theorists, the aforementioned phenomenon may not necessarily describe the inherent dynamics of war in contemporary society. For instance, they argue that security dilemma may not be responsible for war and other instances of uprising between state entities.

On the contrary, they argue that wars and conflict emanate from breakdown in communication and the requisite vigilance along national, regional, and international borders. Experts content that most instances of aggression are preventable through liaison and consultation among relevant authorities. The security dilemma necessitates collaboration between state entities in order to guarantee international security and wellbeing (Mullen, 2014).

As earlier mentioned, there are diverse strains and manifestations of security dilemma in modern society. This concept manifests through occurrences that relate to daily interaction between state entities and their neighbours. Since the world does not have an elaborate chain of command, it becomes increasingly necessary for individual states to secure their interests and obligations in the global arena (Cohen, 2014).

Most countries struggle to survive against oppression and dominance by other powerful states. This reality creates a situation where countries strive to sustain domestic interest against global interests and considerations. It is important to note that such interests are responsible for the emergence of groups such as ISIS. In most cases, countries are suspicious of their neighbours, especially on issues that involve security and regional integration (Garver & PIanin, 2014).

Whenever an individual country makes improvements to its security apparatus, its neighbours feel threatened and overly insecure. Such circumstances are potentially responsible for the emergence of security dilemma among countries in a common regional landscape. This situation describes a situation that experts refer to as defensive realism. In fact, the success of the United States in the First World War is credited to its accuracy and precision in executing defensive realism (Cohen, 2014).

On the other hand, offensive realism espouses diverse conceptual realities such as survivalism, statism, and propagation of anarchy. This theoretical premise argues that state entities thrive on aggression and upheaval. According to this concept, state leaders are always out to reap maximum benefits from situations that are often disadvantageous to neighbours.

The reality of competing interests leads to inappropriate behaviour such as coercion and manipulation. In essence, state entities are seemingly content to manipulate others as long as their interests and objectives are not in jeopardy (Cohen, 2014).

The dichotomy of security dilemma in contemporary world

As earlier mentioned, the concept of security dilemma is more pronounced in modern world more than ever. There are numerous instances when countries and interest groups find it necessary to pursue foreign interests in order to protect their integrity, sovereignty, and wellbeing. Under such circumstances, state entities develop a tendency to manipulate others in order to guarantee and perpetuate domestic and subjective agenda (Beamon, 2014).

The intensity and manifestation of the concept of security dilemma suffices through various ways. One such way is during times of difficulty and contradictory interests. Under such circumstances, states and interest groups may find it difficult to compromise on critical issues that characterize recurrent relationship with contemporaries in society. It is important to note that under such circumstances, offense usually portends advantage to the group or state entity.

For instance, ISIS is actively involved in conflict because it seeks to safeguard its interest in the Gulf region (Beamon, 2014). The group intends to consolidate its authority and hegemony through instigation of strife and coercive undertakings. Another manifestation of security dilemma occurs when there are conflicting interests but defense plays a pivotal role in advancement of domestic and subjective interests.

For instance, the ISIS embarks on activities that guarantee retention and propagation of their onslaught against countries in the gulf region. Evidently, the group harbours grandiose ambitions such as the establishment of caliphates across the gulf region (Beamon, 2014). Such interests are definitely bound to contradict those of leaders within the target countries. The ensuing interplay of interests and aspirations leads to emergence of security dilemma.

The above scenarios are indicative of instances when offensive and defensive mechanisms are contradictory and ineffective. However, there are instances when offensive and defensive patterns are distinct and identifiable. In such situations, the parties involved in the power struggle are fully aware of the implications of their behaviour (Beamon, 2014). They engage in operations that augment their desire for dominance and extension of privileges to the region of choice.

Whenever there is a security dilemma, state entities grapple with numerous options that ultimately govern their course of action. The most important factors in case of a dilemma include geographical location and technological capabilities, especially with regard to weaponry. In certain instances, state entities strive to resolve security dilemma through diplomatic indulgence and interaction (Beamon, 2014).

Whenever there is a security dilemma, there is need for efforts that gear towards resolving the issues through logical avenues of engagement. However, most of these situations lead to aggression and hostility because countries and groups are usually impatient and held captive by vested interests. For instance, the ISIS cannot opt for amicable ways of solving the security dilemma because the group understands that its actions are contrary to the rule of law (Planin, 2014).

On the other hand, leaders of state entities in the Gulf region are willing to retaliate in order to preserve their sovereignty and respect among other nations. The spiral theoretical approach seeks to explain the rationale for constant friction between the ISIS and respective governments in the Gulf region. Through support from international powers, leaders in the affected countries engage members of the Islamic State in an attempt to destabilize and eliminate them (Planin, 2014).

It is important to note that the power struggle between ISIS and state leaders is a pointer to realities that characterize political leadership in modern world. Deterrence model is another paradigm that seeks to rationalize the recurrent instances of security dilemma in contemporary world.

This school of thought argues that state entities are always in pursuit of personal interests. They do so in total disregard of decorum and the rule of law. Under this premise, most cases of security dilemma do not harbour any meaningful justification. For instance, the ISIS onslaught is motivated by greed for power and resources. The organization seeks to circumvent the law for their personal gain (Planin, 2014).

Criticisms and responses

According to the above analysis, it is very clear that security dilemma is an emotive topic. The discourse among scholars and experts does not offer clear direct with regard to its essence and rationale. On one hand, some scholars argue that security dilemma is a product of state pursuit of subjective domestic interests. This premise creates confusion regarding the actual cause of strife and friction between state entities and interest groups such as the ISIS (Planin, 2014). Although such triggers are not clear, it is evident that both parties harbour subjective interests that they need to fulfil.

In essence, both parties are motivated by developments that seem to threaten their status in the social, political, and economic landscape. On the other hand, some scholars argue that security dilemma occurs when independent state entities struggle to defend themselves from insurgence by foreign forces. In this case, the ISIS is an insurgent against Iraq, Syria, and other countries in the Gulf region (Planin, 2014).

Proponents of this school of thought argue that most countries are victims as opposed to aggressors. In fact, it is logical for state entities to react to any instances of aggression. There are other scholars who describe security dilemma as a product of material motivation and desire for control over resources. They further submit that most state leaders instigate political strife with other states in order to annex and consolidate their territory (Planin, 2014).

In the case of ISIS and states in the Gulf region, this could be true because both parties engage in constant war where they seek to capture cities and consequently propagate their expansionist ideologies. In international system of governance, it is assumed that state entities must strive to safeguard power and their sovereignty at all times.

It is therefore normal for countries such as Iraq and Syria to engage in retaliatory efforts against the Islamic State. In order to gain proper knowledge regarding the conflict in the gulf region, it is important to demystify the dynamics of political and military power that are responsible for the current situation (Planin, 2014).

Conclusion and recommendations

The conflict between ISIS and countries in the gulf region is a clear indictment on the state of politics and economic leadership in contemporary society. In fact, the conflict is indicative of underlying issues that require urgent attention from the international community. Although it is irresponsible to relay any form of justification for the current security dilemma, it is necessary for all parties involved to examine recurrent circumstances and determine the root cause of the conflict (Garver & PIanin, 2014).

The conflict was initially limited to the Gulf region. However, it has spread to other areas in the world. For instance, western countries are currently involved in efforts to eradicate the insurgents. This affair is rather complex and requires elaborate planning in order to guarantee success. The ISIS should focus on finding favourable remedies that will ultimately lead to peace and stability in the Gulf region and the world.

The international community should endeavour to eradicate extremism and religious radicalization because both factors are responsible for the current discord between the ISIS and states in the Gulf region (Garver & PIanin, 2014). The international community should also focus on promoting peace and regional integration.

This will go a long way in ensuring that countries and global citizens understand the value of peace and harmonious coexistence. However, countries cannot turn their backs on the current conflict between ISIS and states in the Gulf region. They should be willing to offer the necessary support in order to neutralize the ISIS in favour of Iraq, Syria, and other state entities in the Gulf region (Garver & PIanin, 2014).

References

Beamon, T 2014, Obama Faces Dilemma in Developing Strategy for ISIS, Observers Say.

Cohen, T 2014, 5 Key questions in the Fight against ISIS.

Garver, R, & PIanin, E 2014, The ISIS Dilemma Confronting Obama.

Kaim, M 2013, Great Powers and Regional Orders: The United States and the Persian Gulf, Ashgate Publishing, New York.

Kostiner, J 2009, Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.

Matthews, K 2003, The Gulf Conflicts and International Relations, Routledge, New York.

Mullen, J 2014, Obama’s Syria Dilemma: Does Hurting ISIS Help al-Assad.

Pandey, A 2014, Obama Grapples with ISIS Dilemma as Calls Grow for Airstrikes in Syria.

Planin, E 2014, GOP Dilemma: Support Obama on ISIS or Blame Him for Mideast Mistakes.

Russell, J. A 2006, Critical Issues Facing the Middle East: Security, Politics, and Economics, Palgrave McMillan, New York.

Click Here To Order Now!