After fourteen years in Afghanistan and ten in Iraq (not to mention the drone campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan), isn’t it obvious that a military solution is impossible and that, in terms of ‘hearts and minds’, such missions are counter-productive, often propelling ‘moderate’ Muslims into the arms of the extremists?
...The response is always the same: bomb the hell out them. But the assumption that military superiority will win the day has not only been proved wrong, it is arguably directly responsible for the evolution of IS.
How the U.S. is to blame for the rise of ISIS:
Had the Pentagon stopped [after Afghanistan], we would not have IS, the spawn of al-Qaeda, knocking at the southern gates of Europe now. It was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that revitalised the organisation and popularised its cause.
He says extremism remains and increases because its causes remain. He also blames the U.S. for the increased sectarian tensions in the region:
Let us consider Iraq: before the 2003 US-led invasion and occupation, sectarian tensions in Iraq were few and Sunni-Shi’a couples were commonplace among my Iraqi friends.
He says Paul Bremer got it wrong when he ordered the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces, thinking all of them were Sunnis.
The disbanded Iraqi army—which was established before Saddam came to power—was firmly nationalist and, contrary to Bremer’s belief was mixed, in sectarian terms, with its fair share of Shi’a generals. Embittered by Bremer’s treatment of them, many Sunni commanders joined the insurgency, taking whole brigades with them. These elite ex-army men are now playing a leading role in the Islamic State’s devastating military successes, training fighters, planning military strategy and directing intelligence units.
The Shi'a militias and Kurds are not the solution:
The government and its western backers have been relying on Shi’a militias to battle the extremists—but they are just as vicious and prone to committing atrocities as IS; Kurdish forces have also been deployed, but their agenda is essentially separatist.
His solution for halting ISIS: Let the warring factions battle it out and destroy each other. Foreign interference should be limited to "passive diplomacy." If that doesn't happen, he concludes:
[O]nly a long term, carefully thought out, and region-wide strategy could work. A concerted effort by the region’s policy-makers and influencers to introduce and nurture values of tolerance, unity, mutual co-operation and peace would have a good chance of ousting IS... because hatred, anger and resentment are the oxygen it needs to flourish.
