U.S. should be silent partner in war against ISIS

Somebody is going to have to cut the cancer out.

When it comes down to defining a strategy on how to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or of Iraq and the Levant, depending on your preference, that statement is pretty much it in a nutshell. The question then becomes, who is going to do it?

Who will take the lead in removing from the world a terrorist organization that revels in beheadings and burning people alive to enact its vengeance and to enforce its form of ultraconservative, theocratic form of government?

It’s not an easy question to ask, and even less of an easy question to answer. Because whoever decides to undertake this mission needs to come to grips with the fact that it’s likely a suicide mission for any forces involved on the ground and in the air.

As always, the United States is being pushed to action in helping defeat ISIS, with many of those voices coming from our Congress, who criticize President Barack Obama for not having a clearer plan of action in defeating the terrorist organization. In going to war against ISIS, and that really is what’s required, it is important to clearly define the mission this time.

We don’t want to go through the same “strategy” for committing our resources and blood treasure, if needed, that we did in Iraq when the original presumption of ridding Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destructive proved to be a lie, and our involvement turned into one of nation building.

That was a decade-long exercise that cost a lot of money, lives and in truth, destabilized an already precarious region that led to the rise of ISIS.

We didn’t do much better in Libya when Arab Spring revolutionary forces eventually overthrew another dictator in Muammar Gaddafi. And now, ISIS forces are growing in that destabilized and lawless country.

The reasons for violence in the Middle East are many, varied and stretch back centuries. A 236-year-old upstart like ourselves isn’t going to go in and bring immediate peace, no matter how confident we feel in our abilities.

Besides, U.S. and European involvement in the region is part of the problem, often propping up dictators to preserve our financial and natural resource interests. It’s helped contribute to the philosophy and worldview of groups such as ISIS, as well as given a bad name to a good religion, meaning Islam.

The U.S. can’t be seen as the leader in solving this problem. Rather, we need to be the silent and willing partner.

The major players in the Middle East who oppose ISIS need to be the ones fighting on the ground. They understand the region, geographically, culturally and politically. The Western powers need to provide the financial and technical assistance when needed.

But while a military option is the only one for removing ISIS, there are other factors that need addressing to ultimately prevent something similar from reoccurring. Two of those are the lack of good economic and educational opportunities.

Again, this needs to be done so that those doing the work and leading the initiative are those who live in the region. We can’t be there to “Westernize” and certainly not to exploit for corporate benefit.

Rather, the U.S. and European powers need to be ready to offer financial assistance and our expertise, but only if we’re asked. And, we need to ensure that any resources we provide are used for the purposes intended.

Solving violence in the Middle East needs to be about them, not about us. Otherwise, the cancer will continue to spread.