Is ISIS or Al Qaeda A Bigger Threat to Security?

There is a huge debate on whether or not Al Qaeda, in its prime around 2001, was a bigger threat to the United States' national security than ISIS is today. There are valid arguments on either side. However, I believe that ISIS certainly poses a larger threat due to their organization, repeated terrorist attacks, and their characteristics that make them scarily close to fulfilling the definition of a state. Al Qaeda was an unorganized, ill-defined group that was smaller than ISIS, as well as less experienced in committing acts of terror. These vital differences are what make the latter less terrifying than the former.

ISIS is a very well-organized, well-functioning group of radical islamist terrorists. The fact that they are so incredibly organized and have such a firm standing in their area of influence is extremely concerning. ISIS is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a state. The members give out parking tickets in their area of influence. Furthermore, their land area that they have "rule" over is very clearly drawn out. They have, what appears to be legitimate control, over this area. In his article, "ISIS is More Than A Terrorist Group", Cronin explains that "al Qaeda members mainly carried Middle Eastern passports, many ISIS members travel on European documents; the majority of those who attacked Paris in November are thought to have been citizens of European Union countries" (Cronin, 2). Essentially, ISIS as an institution, is much more established and legitimate than al Qaeda ever was.

While al Qaeda was committing terrorist attacks in their own sphere of influence, they only committed one serious terrorist attack on United States soil. However, ISIS has committed terrorist attacks in multiple states and is currently threatening to move into the United States with attacks soon. To take things further, ISIS has committed horrible acts of torture and atrocities like beheading prisoners and then making the videos public online. This is something al Qaeda never did. This is something that pushes the line in many ways. This is something that makes ISIS much more threatening as they are publicly showing their dehumanization. They are not behaving like real people but rather machines with no conscious.

Since it is clear that ISIS has proven itself to be a larger security threat than al Qaeda, more actions ought to be taken to contain them. They are a group that is no longer threatening simply our national security. Their actions and growth is moving to threaten our ontological and human security as well. Al Qaeda, for a brief moment in time, did just this. They threatened our country and our nation felt incredibly threatened. Our national security as well as our traditions and views were threatened, or at least many felt them to be. However, ISIS is a threat to us both internationally and domestically. We have members of our own nation fleeing overseas to pledge their support to ISIS. Furthermore, citizens of the United States are committing acts of terror on our soil in the name of ISIS. Again, this is something that our country never experienced in the prime of al Qaeda. Since ISIS is a systematic, organized group, it is imperative that the United States treat them as such and deal with them whilst keeping these inconvenient truths in mind.

Democracy and Security

Democracy is delicate, especially in nations that are transitioning into a more democratic form of governance. The United States entered Iraq under the pretense that the country had been using or possessed weapons of mass destruction. The goal was to topple the Taliban in hopes of instituting a democracy. Democracies are fragile to begin with, and have toppled in more stable states than Iraq, which is considered a weak state. In other nations it has used proxies to attempt to disrupt economic security, or encouraged assassination of leaders or a coup d’état. Democracy can’t be used as a Bandaid; it’s not a quick fix to oppressive regimes. It has the potential to be more devastating for a nation than helpful, but this is commonly overlooked by first-world countries that are stable enough to support a democracy. A democracy cannot be sustained by people who reject its core principles, as the system relies on consensus to be successful in governance.

Democratic peace theory states that democratic nations tend to avoid military conflict with each other. The use of torture and overlooking international law by the US during the Iraq war does not help achieve the goal of peace, and shedded a negative light on the US as a overbearing superpower. The peace theory is advantageous for any nation that is a democracy, but it vilifies nations that are not democratic. According to National Geographic, about a half-million Iraqi citizens died during the war. While pursuing motives for democracy promotion out of self-interest, the US failed to consider the safety of citizens in Iraq. The terrorist network is global and not confined to borders. It is a modernized type of warfare that the US has not seen before, and the boots on the ground approach did not effectively target “The War on Terror.” Engaging in military conflict to avoid military conflict proved unsuccessful for the US in the Iraq war.

A state has the ability to frame security issues and determine what falls under the category of national security. According to Ole Wæver in Securitization and Desecuritization, a speech act “moves issues into a security frame so as to achieve effects different from those that would ensue if handled in a nonsecurity mode.” Is the War on Terror’s main purpose security, or is it a title that allows the US to expand its power without the limits of individual liberties? The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) has been extended by congress even though the 9/11 attack happened 15 years ago. It gives the president sweeping military power, including the use of drones. Drones have targeted American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki overseas, and a few American citizens have been killed accidentally. Drone attacks do not allow the accused the right to a fair trial, which is something the American judicial system prides itself on. Drone attacks eliminate the deaths of American citizens, but there is much less accountability for deaths of foreign citizens. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and yet the US continued to fight in Iraq for a decade. It is likely that the US went into Iraq in order to take control of the country’s vast amounts of oil. States can misuse their power over national security to set agendas for political advantage.

While in the US democratic consensus is highly valued, this may not be the norm for every nation. Western values can’t be forced on a society that doesn’t agree with them. Overthrowing a government with military force in foreign nations is not usually recepted well by the country’s people. In What ISIS Women Want by Simon Cottee, an Islamic woman was asked about her rejection of feminism. She replied, “Islam has given all my rights to me as a woman and I feel liberated, I feel content and equal in society and all.” Not all citizens feel oppressed in what the United States deems to be an oppressive regime. Americans consider Islamic women to be “brainwashed” by their oppressive leaders, but many Islamic women don’t view their society in this way and overall accept the role of females in their culture as natural. Democracy should be an option for everyone, but it is not likely that it will be accepted by everyone.

_________________________________

Cottee, Simon. “What ISIS Women Want.” Foreign Policy, 17 May 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/17/what-isis-women-want-gendered-jihad/.

Vergano, Dan. “Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says.” National Geographic, 16 Oct 2013. Accessed 26 Sep 2016. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/.

Wæver, Ole . “3. Securitization and Desecuritization.” On Security: (1995). https://ciaonet.org/book/lipschutz/lipschutz13.html.

Are immigrants a threat?

ISIS has grown greatly in number and its’ violence has caught the attention of many Americans. The problem that comes with this is the fact that some Americans have been blaming the immigrants. Some people believe that the United States should not allow more Muslim immigrants or travellers into the country since they could be ISIS members and planning an attack. This seems very immoral and it is against the beliefs and constitution of the United States to discriminate against a religion. Changing the system we use for immigrants will do nothing to prevent ISIS attacks.

            First, it is clear that immigrants did not commit most of the attacks by ISIS but instead Muslims who already lived in the country committed them. If we changed the system as soon as we learned about ISIS, all acts of violence in the US (or even in France, Brussels, etc.) would likely still have occurred. It is impossible to prevent the ideology of ISIS from crossing borders. It is definitely possible that it could cross the border as an immigrant, but this is unnecessary. There are many ISIS supporters throughout the world. An ISIS member from Iraq does not need to immigrate to a new country to have supporters or power there. 

            Not only are there American citizens willing to attack their countries for ISIS but they are also willing to give up their entire lives to go fight with them in Iraq. Simon Cottee shows this perfectly in her article “What ISIS Women Want”. She writes about some women who left their countries to fight with ISIS in Iraq.  They leave because they believe in the ideology. As seen by in Umm Muthanna’s tweets, she did not believe in the feminist “constricted ideology” and felt like it was being pushed on her. Umm happily left the country, as many others have, to live in a place that holds her ideologies. The point I am making with her story is that she LEFT for her ideology, she did not immigrate to a country they may plan to attack. This type of situation is more common since there are ISIS members all over the world so it is not necessary to immigrate for it. If they are immigrating, it is likely to a place ISIS is prevalent and they can be open about their beliefs.

            The United States already has a very strict border control compared to other countries and a system in place to monitor possible terrorists. The government is monitoring many people throughout the country who may be suspects of terrorism. It is somewhat affective since many terrorists who committed acts of violence were being monitored however there is not much the government can do just because they are suspicious. There needs to be evidence before taking action so attempting to create a more in depth system will likely give very few positive results. The chances of them finding information proving that person will cause something violent will happen is unlikely. It is possible and for that reason they should continue, but changing the system is not necessary. The border control in the United States is also very strict, immigrants are screened and it is unlikely that an ISIS member would make it through all of the screening.
          Overall, ISIS should not be a huge issue for immigration. Border control should be careful about who they let into the country but deciding who can and cannot immigrate here should not be based on their religion. In the United States all citizens are allowed to practice whatever religion they would like and discrimination against a certain religious group goes against our values and morals. It is completely unfair to Muslims wishing to immigrate to the United States. Strict immigration laws should not be considered a way to prevent ISIS attacks.

-Alyssa Viets Blog Post #1

Why ISIS is more of a threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

The Islamic state is more of a security threat than Al Qaeda to the United States for multiple reasons. Ever since February 2014 Al Qaeda has lost fighters and more have gone to join ISIS. As Syria is a failed state and Iraq is weak state, ISIS has decided to invade territory in the north east of Syria and the north west border of Iraq with Syria. ISIS gained most of its land from June 2015 to around January 2015. This is a real threat to the states and citizens of Syria and Iraq but it is also a threat to everyone internationally that doesn't agree with its beliefs. Al Qaeda never grew enough too even have a distinct area of fighters. That is a huge difference contrasted to ISIS.  

One of the components that makes ISIS a bigger threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda is how many more fighters it has over Al Qaeda. The Syrian observatory of human rights estimates that the total amount of fighters are around 80,000 to 100,000. The more fighters the more magnitude for change, the more following IS mission too.  

Another main component that makes it a bigger threat is how it has made so much progress internationally. A bbc article says that "IS is believed to be operational in 18 countries across the world, including Afghanistan and Pakistan." Whether or not the spread of Islamic state fighters are actually travelling over to other countries and it is successful at spreading the ideology and beliefs that it believes in. The article also mentions it has also gotten attention through international attacks in many countries including Turkey, Indonesia, France, Belgium, the U.S. and Bangladesh. These attacks are not only ones that have been claimed in the name of ISIS but these attacks call for intervention, as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have agreed that an attack on one nation(a member of NATO) is an attack on all. The members of NATO that have been attacked are Belgium, France, the U.S. and Turkey. Thus all members of NATO should start intervening if they have not already as there could be an attack coming to that country too. Another way it was gotten international attention is with the foreign fighters that have travelled to both Syria and Iraq to join IS, including 27,000 jihadists have travelled to 86 countries, more than have gone to the Middle East and North Africa. This is a drastic difference of migrants that were attracted to fight for ISIS contrasted to Al Qaeda. These are all examples that ISIS is a bigger threat as it has grown so much internationally whether where it is operational, making attacks or attracting foreign fighters. 

Part of the its mission is to kill anyone that disagrees with its beliefs. It has already made that clear. According to bbc, the organization is threatening to destroy Iraqi ethnic and religious minorities. If it is willing to do this to minorities that share different beliefs than themselves, what would it would be willing to do to Americans? Americans have very different beliefs, whether religious or not. It wants to have a dire war with the west, simply because there is a difference in beliefs.  

It also says in the article that "The Syrian observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, reported in September 2016 that more than 300,00 people, including 86,000 civilians, had been killed since March 2011." Of course that number has only gone up since then too. This amount of violence is so catastrophic that Al Qaeda would not have been able to succeed at.