Fight IS but don't be hasty - the perils of under-prepared intervention against the Islamic State

The world has been appalled by the actions of the Islamic State (IS), formerly known as ISIS. The societies and politicians around the world have been expressing their outrage and working towards building an international coalition to fight IS. This hasn't been easy as the public has the right to be weary of sending soldiers to Iraq for the third time in 25 years. It also must have been a difficult decision for the US administration as sending troops back to Iraq shortly after their withdrawal may be perceived as an admission of failure. Yet, there they are again.
The previous Iraq war was claimed to result in the "Iraq syndrome", i.e. the public reluctance to sending troops to far-away conflict zones without a clear and overwhelming benefit to the national interest. This is understandable when we think about the ways politicians justified the Iraq war of 2003 (WMD which never were found, allegations of fabricated evidence, etc.). Being aware that it would be very difficult to persuade the British public to a full-on invasion, the government decided to reach for "half-measures". The Brits have been promised that the country would not send ground troops to fight IS and any intervention would be limited to air strikes over Iraq. The problem is that such half-measures may cause a great deal of harm to both people in the Middle East and in the West. The aerial bombardments are likely to be ineffective in medium to long run and indeed may make IS stronger. They are associated with a high risk of errors and killing innocent civilians in large numbers; this will cause public backlash both in the UK and Middle East. America got a taste of that when US forces bombed a wedding party and killed 42 civilians in Mukaradeeb in May 2004.

As a result IS may find more sympathisers and supporters who will want the Western powers out of the Middle East. Some of them may want to go further and punish the West back in Europe and America. IS can easily use such a situation to their advantage and try to maximise civilian casualties of Western airstrikes. They could do it many ways, for example they may (1) hide among civilians and thereby increase the risk of injuring innocent in airstrikes, (2) use civilians as human shields, even if a strike was called off, those civilians would suffer greatly, (3) attempt to deliberately mislead the Western intelligence to direct the West's fire power onto the innocent. In any of these cases the result would be an increase in the popularity of IS and increased hostilities towards the West.

Does it mean the world should stand by and do nothing? This is not a good solution either. Leaving IS unchecked will allow it to consolidate power and influence, and eventually threaten the West directly. IS is already supposed to be the richest terrorist organisation ever generating 3 million dollars a day in income. This adds up to almost 1.1 billion dollars a year - income comparable to the GDP of a small country such as Seychelles. Furthermore, the lands occupied by IS border Turkey, a NATO member. If IS launches attacks against Turkey, in theory, the other members of the alliance will have no choice but assist Turkey in fight against the enemy. Not doing so would have great political repercussions as the reliability of NATO would be undermined. This is something the alliance can badly afford in the times when Russia is arming up and spreading fear among the alliance's Eastern European members.

At the moment it seems that the West together with the Middle Eastern allies should come up with a comprehensive strategy of defeating IS, one that will go far beyond the day when IS is crippled. They should start from cutting off revenue sources for IS, including dealing with its sponsors. Building a wide regional coalition to fight IS should be of utmost importance. This would allow to send ground troops but as a part of multinational coalition which includes the Middle Eastern countries. Governments should plan and prepare their countries for a long commitment and large scale project. Don't repeat the mistakes of the previous Iraq war. Send enough troops to control the situation and prevent a rapid escalation of violence and terrorist attacks. Commit adequate resources to rebuild the country and create strong governments in Iraq and later in Syria, with proper infrastructure. Use any pressure and leverage available to ensure the governments on the ground are inclusive of all groups and minorities and do not  repeat the mistakes of the recent Iraqi governments which deepened divisions and provoked ethnic strife which eventually landed their country in the chaos and violence it is in now. In any case, the big question is whether the West, in particular the USA and UK, will be able to maintain public support for the operations in the Middle East. At the moment, the support appears quite wide but it's likely to be shallow, and may be difficult to maintain without any major event targeted directly at America or Europe.