01 JUNE 2015 - MATTHEW R. BISHOP:
There are some rather straightforward points to consider for why Western media outlets and the United States Armed Forces ought to start reconsidering their approaches to ISIS and adjusting their behavior accordingly:
But in any scenario, media outlets need to realize that their coverage of ISIS at this point has been doing more harm than good. It inflames fears and tensions and party divides, it encourages becoming embroiled in a third civil war with no realistic end in sight from where we stand, and it dramatically bolsters ISIS's own recruitment efforts. Not to mention that it accomplishes Assad's three major objectives and thus harms U.S. interests even as defined in narrow realism terms.
So what can we do to change all of this?
First, stop thinking of Syria as a place to be puppetted. Syria is neither a puppet of the United States, nor of Russia, nor of Iran. The Syrian people need legitimate government. Whether or not they are "ready for democracy", they ought to be allowed to elect their own leaders rather than having Russia and the United States use various fighting factions in what nearly amounts to a Cold War-era proxy war. Safe and monitored elections are overdue in Syria and can seriously increase the prospects of peace both at local and at national levels. The United Nations and the Arab League need to lead the charge in that effort, with the support of international media.
Now there is one thing that is in common among a large number of fighters in Syria, and that is the relentless three-year drought that preceded conflict. The World Bank Group and New York Times both concluded, in their own investigations, that the drought was the primary driver of conflict in Syria and remains so today. A route forward, in addition to elections, therefore might look like this:
+ The immediate distribution of food aid and emergency funds.
+ Long-term consulting and construction aid in developing reliable dam and irrigation infrastructure that can resist future droughts and enhance regional food security
+ Deployment of international troops in the drought-affected areas while these projects are undergoing. Serious troop commitments will be needed and half-efforts will not succeed. With a full commitment the area can be secured while agricultural infrastructure is improved and farmers are taught how to work the newly development farmlands.
+ Positive media coverage of these efforts to encourage forward thinking and to discourage the continuing of conflict.
Ideally the effort will be endorsed and led by the United Nations, with the major support of Iran, Russia, and the United States. The only measure that the major powers will disagree on is elections. Repairing the root cause of conflict (drought) is not a cause of contention between the major powers and it should be possible to move ahead with those efforts. Mass media companies must fall in line with the effort to generate public support and optimism, most importantly in conflict-torn regions where apathy and hopelessness are rampant. As opposed to conflict, this path has a higher success chance with a far lower associated risk. Not to mention it saves human lives.
There are some rather straightforward points to consider for why Western media outlets and the United States Armed Forces ought to start reconsidering their approaches to ISIS and adjusting their behavior accordingly:
- ISIS recruitment is aided tremendously by Western news coverage. CNN reaches 387 million homes worldwide. The average ISIS fighter has about one thousand Twitter followers. Which is more influential? ISIS fighters saw a rapid influx in their numbers when Western media began covering them en masse, in some cases doubling in only months. And yet mass media companies still spend significant time on a daily basis covering the threat of ISIS and embedding the threat in the minds of Americans.
- Given this and other observations, Syrian President Assad has previously stated that he will direct his military efforts against non-ISIS groups, believing that Americans will feel compelled to make sure ISIS does not win the fight. This policy accomplishes three objectives for Assad: It forces Americans to invest more heavily against ISIS, it allows for Assad to be the strongest powerholder in Syria and to focus solely on fighting other armed groups, and it disables Assad's opposition by essentially creating a US-Assad alliance that the United States does not even want.
- We don't understand the conflict. Americans generally see images of ISIS and think, "well those crazy terrorists just want to kill people and take our freedoms!". Well, not really. A lot of people joined the movement because they felt their people were oppressed. More of them, however, saw it as an opportunity out of poverty-- a good ISIS fighter can make 1,250 USD/month. And a few of them even want to throw up a global caliphate and return to the glory of the days before sanitation and air conditioning and the internet. Why? I can't imagine. I really don't know why. But if you really want to endISIS, you have to address all three of these groups and solve each group's problems. Now exactly how do you intend to do that? Until you have an answer, you are not really trying for anything-- you are only fighting against
- Which is exactly what happened in Iraq. Do we want another Iraq? Maybe we do, maybe we don't-- there isn't any real public opinion data on that as it pertains to Syria. Some people do want boots on the ground. But when the question was considered, there was a popular movement among younger servicemen on social media, saying how they do not believe deployments on the ground are necessary-- in fact, the movement was opposed to any engagements in Syria in general. So before thinking about escalating the fight we need to ask: Would the American people accept "another Iraq" in Syria? Is it worth it to them? Most early data suggests the answer is no.
But in any scenario, media outlets need to realize that their coverage of ISIS at this point has been doing more harm than good. It inflames fears and tensions and party divides, it encourages becoming embroiled in a third civil war with no realistic end in sight from where we stand, and it dramatically bolsters ISIS's own recruitment efforts. Not to mention that it accomplishes Assad's three major objectives and thus harms U.S. interests even as defined in narrow realism terms.
So what can we do to change all of this?
First, stop thinking of Syria as a place to be puppetted. Syria is neither a puppet of the United States, nor of Russia, nor of Iran. The Syrian people need legitimate government. Whether or not they are "ready for democracy", they ought to be allowed to elect their own leaders rather than having Russia and the United States use various fighting factions in what nearly amounts to a Cold War-era proxy war. Safe and monitored elections are overdue in Syria and can seriously increase the prospects of peace both at local and at national levels. The United Nations and the Arab League need to lead the charge in that effort, with the support of international media.
Now there is one thing that is in common among a large number of fighters in Syria, and that is the relentless three-year drought that preceded conflict. The World Bank Group and New York Times both concluded, in their own investigations, that the drought was the primary driver of conflict in Syria and remains so today. A route forward, in addition to elections, therefore might look like this:
+ The immediate distribution of food aid and emergency funds.
+ Long-term consulting and construction aid in developing reliable dam and irrigation infrastructure that can resist future droughts and enhance regional food security
+ Deployment of international troops in the drought-affected areas while these projects are undergoing. Serious troop commitments will be needed and half-efforts will not succeed. With a full commitment the area can be secured while agricultural infrastructure is improved and farmers are taught how to work the newly development farmlands.
+ Positive media coverage of these efforts to encourage forward thinking and to discourage the continuing of conflict.
Ideally the effort will be endorsed and led by the United Nations, with the major support of Iran, Russia, and the United States. The only measure that the major powers will disagree on is elections. Repairing the root cause of conflict (drought) is not a cause of contention between the major powers and it should be possible to move ahead with those efforts. Mass media companies must fall in line with the effort to generate public support and optimism, most importantly in conflict-torn regions where apathy and hopelessness are rampant. As opposed to conflict, this path has a higher success chance with a far lower associated risk. Not to mention it saves human lives.
