Earlier this week, an ISIS convoy outside of Mosul, Iraq transporting its caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was struck by a U.S. airstrike. Many are celebrating the potential death as a possibility to bring ISIS to its knees quickly and effectively with little expenditures in terms of time, money and men.
These people, however, are looking at ISIS in terms of a centralized Western military structure — a foolish mistake often made when trying to understand the rebel and terrorist groups of the Middle East. I contend, that due to the decentralized and localized nature of power within ISIS that there will be little to no effect in the case of the caliph's death.
Things will continue just as they did when the group's first leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was assassinated in 2006 and just as al-Qaeda did upon the death of Osama Bin Laden. A new leader was chosen, and without missing a step the regional lieutenants of both organizations kept up operations.
The pairing of decentralized regional command with the modern conveniences of banking and information technology has resulted in a coordinated force that is nigh impossible to pin down entirely. This results in a resilient and flexible fighting force which can adapt quickly and precisely.
So, in the end, the possible death of al-Baghdadi means little and ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria should remain relatively unaffected. The major potential effect is that his death could result in an opportunistic surge from rival rebel groups, both moderate and extremist.
If ISIS remains strong, that leaves the Syria question on the table: What can be done to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and destroy ISIS? Much to the chagrin of President Obama — assuming little deviation from the current circumstances — the answer is nothing. The main moderate force backed by the U.S., the Free Syrian Army, is still the most affected by ISIS while Assad remains the sole actor with legitimacy.
In the past, the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein divided the country to the point of turmoil and resulted in what is now ISIS; the toppling of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi led to a chaotic regional warlord situation; yet, by some sick twist of fate our commander-in-chief hasn't realized that the outcome of toppling yet another regime might not yield desirable effects.
The likely continued activity of ISIS in Syria and Iraq presents both a problem and an opportunity. If handled correctly, the current chaos could give Obama a strong hand in attempting to reconcile the moderate rebels and the Assad regime to produce a united Syrian state. While such a union would almost assuredly still be under the rule of Assad, such a move would give the U.S. leverage to reign in Assad, improve our relations with Iran (and in effect, Russia), terminate ISIS and increase regional stability by strengthening ties between Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Reach the columnist abbooth1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @AndrewBuckBooth
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
