France has made it clear that they will not accept the horrific terrorist attacks on their nation by ISIS by bombing a series of ISIS sites in Raqqa, Syria. Two days after the tragic series of attacks in Paris that killed more than 120 civilians and wounded over 350 more, France bombarded Raqqa with twenty bombs to destroy several targets. This included a command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base, and a training camp for the terror group. All targets were reportedly destroyed, and there were no casualties.
Although these bombings were an important military move, they were also a strong political move that was extremely symbolic. France is not going to sit back and fear ISIS after their terror attacks. They are showing to ISIS and the rest of the world that they are not afraid of ISIS and that they will fight back. Some are questioning whether or not this was the best strategy. Janine di Giovanni, Newsweek's Middle East Editor spoke on the issue, saying ,"I think that it's very complicated, launching airstrikes like this as a retribution, but also as a way of wiping out ISIS. Because, the other thing is, that you can't wipe out an ideology. You might be able to suppress them militarily, or you might be able to cut off some of their lines, but you can't suppress the key message they're spreading." This brings up a valid point. Although France and the rest of the world can battle ISIS militarily, they cannot destroy ISIS's core beliefs and messages. In addition, they cannot make people forget the terror involved in these attacks. Even after France's response, it is almost impossible to tell what the actual effects of these airstrikes will be. We know so little about what ISIS is doing that these airstrikes are more symbolic than anything else.
What do you think about France's response? Was this the right move? If not, what else could they have done?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/europe/paris-attacks-at-a-glance/
9 comments:
France's strong move in the wake of the events of last week was a step in the right direction. It shows that they won't be victimized. Furthermore, their symbolic counter-attack was on a small enough scale that they aren't involving themselves in anything ridiculous. I am reminded of 9/11 in the way that they put on a strong front, but their reaction was much better than ours in comparison, as we launched into a drawn out war while they completed a relatively successful counter attack.
Though airstrikes are obviously not sufficient to eliminate ISIS' fundamentalist ideology, this act of revenge by France was very much warranted and one of the few things that France could have done. Following the attacks, France had to demonstrate its military capabilities and show ISIS that it would not back down in the face of its terrorist attacks. Though the popular saying goes that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," diplomacy and negotiation are impossible when one is dealing with a radical group that places such a large emphasis on the use of violence. ISIS consists of brutes with only the goal of jihadist violence in mind, and they cannot be compromised with. Thus, France's strategic airstrikes were appropriate, and though they may have only destroyed a few targets and caused no casualties, they are another small step towards the weakening of ISIS. Western countries are not the ones who are capable of defeating ISIS' ideology (only Middle-Eastern moderates can do that), but nations like France can play an important role in assisting these people in overcoming the militants.
I support France's decision to fight back against the terror attacks of ISIS 100%. I believe that the airstrikes on Syria were far stronger than the media implied that they were. Kat is correct in saying that these strikes did not cause nearly enough damage as is necessary to slow down ISIS, but this had a larger political effect. It is likely that the caliphate was not expecting France to fight back with such aggression, and the bombing of Raqqa showed that France would not stand for any more acts like this, and they have the means to launch counter attacks. Brian brought up a good point in stating that the areas targeted in Raqqa included training centers, ammunition storage centers, recruitment centers, and a command center. The twenty or so bombs dropped by France were strategically placed to slow down the further damage that ISIS is no doubt planning to cause; they were not targeted at civilians.
Although the airstrike launched was not as powerful as it could have been, it is better than having no response at all. France was smart in keeping the scale of the counterattack small, as it would not be necessarily the best idea to become involved immediately in a war that could have serious detriments. The french government got their message across, and launched a quick counterattack that showed that they were strong enough to protect their people, which i think is more than could be said for other countries that have been in their position before.
I think, like many of the other commenters, that France made a bold and justifiable decision with this attack. Unfortunately, when dealing with something as pervasive and parasitic as ISIS, there often is no "right move". Any military action taken is liable to harm civilians as well as militants, which in turn creates an angry and jaded population that could potentially turn to radicalism for revenge. All of the powers fighting against ISIS must be extremely prudent with their attacks to avoid fostering even greater anti-West sentiment.
Like the original post said, you can't wipe out an ideology. The best way to, in the long run, get rid of an ideology is to delegitimize it and take away its support. So, though France's attack was justified, it does, unfortunately, give ISIS what they want--the feeling that the West is scared of them. Delegitimizing ISIS will take a long time and lots of hard, hard work, though, and will not save the lives of those currently suffering under their radical regime. That said, France was right (in some capacity) to bomb Raqqa.
We can, as an anti-ISIS unit, work towards spreading messages that combat those of ISIS--of love, support, equality, and fairness. If we continue to educate ourselves and others we may, hopefully, in the future, be able to combat the source of all of this violence: hatred.
I too support France's decision to conduct these airstrikes. In the face of such horrific events it is important for the nation and people affected to be united and regain their sense of security. As the name terrorist implies, their goal is to bring fear and terror to those they view as their enemies (and in the case of Friday's events they were successful). Therefore in France taking this definitive action against ISIS the people of that nation as well as the rest of the world will start to regain their sense of safety. These airstrikes, though small in their nature, have decidedly shown the strength of France - that they will not give in when faced with tragedy. It is important to demonstrate this fortitude to a group such as ISIS who feed off this fear. Additionally in conducting these attacks their effects will hopefully slow/impede their development (so that other events will be unlikely to happen) since as mentioned in the article it is impossible to destroy an ideology, especially one that is so radical. Therefore by going after ISIS militarily it will help to limit the effects of that ideology. Overall France made the right move at this point in time and has provided a great example of how a nation should respond (when given the opportunity) in the face of such terrible events, as well as how the future handling of ISIS should be conducted.
I agree with maybesarah. When you fight against ideology, there is no such thing as a clear victory. ISIS feeds off the West destroying civilian cities, they won't surrender no matter how many we kill (and with our might we can kill a lot). Like Vietnam, their hatred and anger lives beyond their lives and their lives are meaningless to them in comparison to the cause. We will always win in body count but we can't win unless we can find a way to stabilize these countries and foster peace, instead of destroying everything and letting them grow back more radical than ever. In my opinion, we, the United States, have to form a coalition with European and Asian powers to dominate this region with military might (this includes ground troops.) ISIS' message does not end through peace and love like a fairy tale. We need to occupy their country and stay there for as long as possible If we educate locals thoroughly the means of creating infrastructure and fostering businesses, they will be less inclined to live in fear and obey the principles of ISIS. Essentially, we go to Syria and we change it, not just go there and leave it to grow another terror group. France's decision to bomb a Raqqa is meaningless in terms of actually dealing with ISIS, but is a great response to show the might of France and how they cherish their citizens.
I have to disagree with all previous comments that state France was justified to bomb the city of Raqqa. In no way does bombing ISIS show the might of France, it more so portrays a hypocritical image in my mind. With all due respect to these tragic events, ISIS killed over 100 innocent civilians, and sure the member of ISIS are guilty and morally unjust, however how does violence drive out violence? Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannnot drive out hate, only love can do that." These words immediately resonsated in my mind following these events. Although it may seem that the only reasonable act to protect the well being of civil countries would be to bomb the group of people who attacked these countries intially, it does not solve the root of the issue. I more so side with the idea that the previous student stated which was "essentially we go to Syria and we change it, not just go there and leave it to grow into another terror group". Rather than bombing ISIS, I believe a reasonable approach to the issue would be to change Syria's situation with the help of other civil countries. Bombing will do the least to solve this growing issue of terrorism. If justice wants to be served and human rights want to be protected, it is our duty to change Middle Eastern countries, to ensure that ISIS cannot flourish in any of these places and that peace and security can potentially be restored.
At this point in time, we have no means of destroying an idea. It's impossible to eliminate the beliefs of ISIS, and what they embody, but it is possible to cripple ISIS's supply lines, and eliminate their members, who seek to kill Westerners. To be frank, these radical Islamists aren't scared of our words, or our intentions. The free world needs to come together and deal with these radicals the only way they understand -- through brute, quick force. Therefore, France was more than justified in it's attack on ISIS in Syria. Caroline 8, while I agree with your points, and I especially agree that "violence does not drive out violence," there's nothing else that can be done.
Having established that the bombings were justified, I do think that there might be a better way to eliminate the ISIS threat than through airstrikes. I think that not only France, but a coalition of Western nations needs to send troops into Syria and the Middle East on the ground. They need to re-occupy ISIS strongholds, eliminate local ringleaders, and reestablish justice in the Middle East. Everyone is afraid of war, and there is a certain stigma against people who want to go to war with ISIS, but there will be no end to their campaign of terror on innocent people until they are crushed by our superior forces and military.
I agree with the responses of Stephen and Caroline 8 and their opinion that it was not a good idea to bomb the city of Raqqa. Without a doubt, the attacks in Paris were absolutely horrific as 120 innocent civilians died. As tragic as this event was, I do not think France made the correct response. Violence is not the answer especially in this growing issue of terrorism. I would have had a different opinion if France tried a different solution at first and then resorted to bombing the city. But, I think it is somewhat immature of France to immediately bomb Raqqa. When a child is young and someone hits them or calls them a bad name, a child is usually not taught by its parents to hit back or repeatedly call them bad words right back to them. A child is taught to talk to the person that is bothering them. Clearly, the issue of ISIS is on a MUCH larger scale. However, the same fundamental rules apply. France should not have reacted to Syria in the way that they did. Dropping a bomb does not help, in any way, in trying to solve the issue of terrorism.
Post a Comment