Negotiation, And Negotiation With All Extremists Groups In Syria

During ISIS’s rise to power, there have been several key players, which have influenced the growth or decline of its movement. The center of Gravity (COG) for ISIS has been its ability to recruit volunteer foreign fighters from around to engage in its caliphate. In addition, local people from Iraqi, Syrian, and other Nations have been key players because of ISIS’s efforts promote fear and violence against their family or communities. Sunnis and Shia countries focused on regional power and security. Furthermore, the U.S. and its 70 Allies through Operation Inherent Resolve Campaign aim to defeat ISIS and promoting regional stability. The last key players are rival terrorist franchises or organizations like AQ, Taliban, Al Shabaab, and Hamas

The United States first tool to achieve these goals is diplomatic. First, the United States needs to retract the policy that the United States does not negotiate with Terrorists. Negotiation creates a negative connotation of concession or handing power over to the enemy. Negotiation, however, can be mere discussion with the enemy to find a way to end violence. Diplomatic tools consist of treaties, conventions, alliances, and accords. Holding conventions and creating accords will be the most successful approaches. Treaties require Senate and Presidential approval which can be a lengthy process and is tied up in domestic politics. The United States already has certain alliances and it is necessary to cultivate them, but in the context of ISIS and Syria, alliances are already set with the Free Syrian Army. Conventions to bring together many nations in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States, to formulate agreements and accords with the states that are involved in Syria and fighting ISIS. ISIS, should not be a signatory since they are not a recognized state, but should be able to attend to make decisions with an understanding of ISIS’ wants because by understanding their objectives and interests we are better able to make policy to decrease violence of ISIS.

As of present, the state of Iraq is plagued with a myriad of problems, each of which must be taken into consideration when determining the best possible course of action for the United States. First, previous interventions, particularly those conducted by the United States, in Iraq must be considered in order to understand how a particular course of action in the current dilemma might play out. While the United States has played a role in Iraqi coups throughout the 20th century and assisting the Kurdish population in the north, the most decisive interventions began with the Persian Gulf War. The second is the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the third is the American-led intervention in Iraq against ISIS which is ongoing.

America and Iraq first began their relations back in the twentieth century when U.S oil corporations took interest in Iraq. After Saddam Hussain took control over Iraq, relations between America and Iraq spiraled downhill. Although Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seeks sovereignty, it is in America’s interest to contain and prevent that. There are two possible solutions to this issue: military intervention and diplomacy. Diplomacy would be the better option because it would do a better job of preventing ISIL from terrorizing America and also other nations.

Born out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group by the name ISIS has become incredibly unpopular with everyone, especially those in the West. ISIS stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; the name was made in the hopes to assert their dominance in Syria. Many Great Powers across the globe, the United States in particular, are focused on defeating the fast growing terrorist group, but unfortunately, have had very little success in the past due to the lack of ground troops. The United States has not done enough to fight ISIS because the country is afraid that getting too involved would take a great toll on their nation; however, the U.S. needs to directly and physically attack the terrorist group because nothing is going to change without U.S. military involvement. That said, I feel the only recommendations for further interactions are as follows:

Many theories and explanations explaining the actions and existence of ISIS, and how it might be overcome in order to ensure the safety and security of countries worldwide. Two competing theories – realism and constructivism – give us much to consider about how we understand and react current events and future ones: “How a state manages those opportunities and obligations depends on its definition of the threat, its understanding of the players involved, and its assumptions about capabilities and responses both at home and abroad. In other words, a state must make a decision to balance the hard facts of realism with the potential of a more liberal foreign policy.” (Buros, 2011). Another thing to consider is the rest of the community: “How a state responds to that threat relies on basic assumptions made regarding the threat, capabilities of themselves and their allies, and the willingness of the international community to acquiesce to perceived aggression.” (ibid). Generally put, the proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) flourished with instability and a weak government in Iraq. With previous ties to Al Qaeda, its involvement in fighting against Bashar al-Assad and capture of land in Iraq and Syria, coupled with extreme violent methods and rhetoric gave the region enough to be concerned about. How this occurred can be explained a few ways.

Our question concerning ISIS, illustrates a plan on what should be done about them and by whom. As stated previous, instead of counterterrorism and lying low, troops should be put on the grounds to finally control and help stop what the Islamic State have being doing for two years. With realism, it challenges us to have the primary goal of survival. We ought to conquer and be the last to survive. With that being said, States can never be certain about others’ intention, in this case ISIS’s. We will never know when they will attack unless we take control of the situation and take them over. We have the power to take out ISIS and should do it soon while we have time before the next 9-11 happens. At the end of the day we need to realize innocent people are being taken advantage and ISIS is going after the weak. They have no moral believes and will do anything to make a names for themselves like performing suicide missions, blowing up state capitals and highly populated areas. The Islamic State needs to be stop and the United States needs to come in sense with other nation-states to stop this nonsense once and for

The war in Syria is a political mess fought by many different parties and even the world’s largest superpowers. Contrary to what most believe it is not a religious war between Shia and Sunni branches rather a political war for power.

In four options of dealing with ISIS problem, there are two options are not possible to apply. In the first method ‘uniting Syrian arm forces before supporting them countering ISIS’, resolving political confrontation need a long process and time due to protecting political views and interest of two sides. The rebel will not willing to compromise with Assad’s authority. The fourth option ‘ideological counter’ also present the impossibility. As extremist, ISIS has conservative and reactionary ideology. Hence, changing its knowledge is not realized.

The President has directed the National Security Advisor to lead the formulation of a comprehensive Syria policy that supports the following objectives: a whole and unified Syria with no role for Bashar al-Assad in the government, the defeat of violent extremist groups like ISIS or Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, an end to the Syrian war, through political settlement, and the humanitarian crisis it has provoked, and the prevention of Iranian and Russian designs being realized in Syria. An upcoming NSC meeting will discuss strategy options for Syria.

One matter can be resolved by different options. However, it do not mean all method are suitable. In three options of dealing with ISIS problem, one per three options are not posible to apply. In the first method ‘uniting Syrian arm forces before supporting them countering ISIS’, although uniting the two side of political opposites about Assad’s matter in order to fight against ISIS do not violate any laws, UN charter or treaties, it can be an opportunity for expanding of ISIS. Resolving political confrontation need a long process and time due to protecting political views and interest, the rebel side do not willing to compromise with Assad’s authority promptly. If ISIS problem is not solved imediately, global security will be threaten seriously.

The Islamic State of Syria (ISIS) has become a top priority in the elimination of global terrorism. The terrorist group is responsible for exactly 98 incidents throughout the world. Their causes of death have occurred in countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, United States and many more from 2014 to present. Their several attacks have shown a clear message that they wont stop until they have completed their mission by building a strong enough caliphate for their Islamic religion to dominate through out the world.

Ways; Increase the airstrikes bombing with prices targeting on ISIL human and logistical capacity and capability. Establishing the Combine Task Forces (be prepared) no more than Battalion size (Civilian Led, Intel, military expertise and NGO for humanitarian Support) with purpose to support the countries in

The one international organization and major actor that needs to address ISIS is the UN Security Council. The question is what tools does the UN Security Council have to limit their power, and money that is continually streamlined in. Consequently, the Security Council currently only deals with states, therefore it is a difficult proposition for the organization to intervene with ISIS. However, in the past, the council “calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement”(Security Council UN). Furthermore, the Security Council has the right to impose sanctions and use force to restore peace around the globe. It was noted in UN Security Council Resolution 2170, “terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States… which is why our first priority is to encourage others to join in this important endeavor.” Back in 2014, the Security Council put forth a few plans to defeat and limit the power of ISIS. The UN Security Council also worked with NATO to lay these solutions out. The first solution is providing military support to our middle east partners and allies like Hungry. Secondly, the UN Security Council and

President Obama has previously stated that, "...my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning, and negotiations - but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime." Even if the Assad regime would forfeit up its chemical weapons and join the Chemical Weapons Convention which outwardly condemns their use the Syrian crisis will still not be solved and the years of turmoil are bound to come with a much longer road ahead. Regarding any future military action, Obama has said “we cannot resolve someone else 's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan." So the solution is to not engage in war tactics but by alleviating the people of the region.