Up until the 21st century, winning a war has usually been a matter of physical strength. From the European guns used to conquer the Native Americans to the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, a clear pattern emerges: the side with better weapons, more innovative technology and greater manpower wins. Winning is measured in discrete terms, through the amount of units of individual soldiers or territory one posseses. With these long-held conceptions of war, it is unsurprising that we approach the global War on Terrorism in the same manner today.
Yet why are we still sending troops to Syria? Indeed, our efforts to send more troops to Syria only perpetuates an endless cycle with our soldiers engaging in violent battles over shifting territorial claims in the Middle East. This cycle of brief conquests and sudden losses continues with no great net gain and instead only with the deaths of hundreds of Americans. The question comes down to this: why aren’t we winning?
The problem is in our approach. The centuries-old dogma of winning war through conquering another’s territory clouds the way we view the War on Terrorism. While we view the war as a struggle with a nation and attack its capitals, send in drones to kill its leaders and increase troops in Afghanistan and Syria, our enemies see it as a holy battle to spread the “true” word. We quantify terrorism in the battle against “ISIS” or “Al Qaeda”, not understanding that we are not fighting nations but a whole sea of radical ideology that cannot be easily killed with weapons. Indeed, the ultimate problem with our approach lies in the fact that we fight this war as a battle against a nation; they fight this war as a divine way of life.
This, however, is not to say that our triumphs have been in vain, that Osama Bin Laden’s death was for nothing or the Iraqi recapture of Ramadi did not tilt the fortune in our favor. But terrorism is a Hydra; when we cut off one head, three more grow out, angrier than before. Despite our brief wins in the Middle East, achieved through the hard dedication of American soldiers, how can we conquer the thoughts of a radical Islamist? How can we force and prevent one individual from committing suicide? How can we bend someone’s will to resist terrorism while they’ve been taught to hate America their whole life? We must realize that it is easier to change someone’s heart when we stop killing enemy troops and start understanding enemy minds.
Have we ever stopped and seriously considered why ISIS hates us? Often we dismiss it as “they’re radical Islamists” or “they hate democracy” or other easy explanations. Yet, to get to the core of how to defeat them, we need to look beyond the one-sentence answers and understand their motives in a deeper, less black or white sense. Why are so many young people (in America especially) entranced by ISIS’s message? While we might be able to send our military against theirs in Syria or Iraq, the main gains ISIS has made do not come from land battles but through the sacrifices of those jihad fighters willing to die for their cause—and kill others along with them. No amount of military strength can force these jihad fighters to stop believing radical Islam. No amount of military force can prevent the deaths they cause. While tightening border controls for Syrian immigrants or increasing troop size might block certain tunnels in a sea of their infiltration, their sea will still exist—and always exist as long as this radical ideology exists and people are unsatisfied with America.
“So what’s your solution?” a critic might ask. “If weapons aren’t the answer, how do we stop the killings of civilians in Paris, San Bernadino or Pakistan? Even if weapons don’t help in all ways, at least if we destroy ISIS’s headquarters in Iraq, we can lessen their political influence. And the strength and power of an ideology can decrease if ISIS doesn’t have ways to communicate it.”
Such statements are not wrong, for it is true that, to some degree, territory control will determine the reach of an ideological power. Yet even if we look at the history of Christians in Pakistan or North Korea, who often would rather die at persecution than renounce their faith, we can see how, even under minor territory control, religion holds an infallible power. Therefore, the way to approach ISIS is not through weapons but through words. Indeed, force cannot change a person’s belief, only their outward display of that belief. In order to stop terrorism, we must stop the indoctrination of radical Islam on impressionable minds.
The first step to this approach is to target the ways ISIS rallies its global followers: social media. Although Carly Fiorina has many faults as a candidate, she promoted the right idea at the Republican debate about our approach to terrorism. Indeed, we must work together with Silicon Valley, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants to minimize the online battlefield ISIS has. However, this is only the first step in this new battle. In addition to minimizing their message, we must learn to reevaluate ourselves and see why so many moderate Muslims want to join ISIS. As Albert Einstein once said, “peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding”. To prevent ISIS’s spread over the globe, we must look into the foundations of their ideology rather than just sending troops to Syria. Fighting terrorism is not like fighting in a traditional war. Fighting Terrorism does not follow the simple formula of sending more troops equating to more results. Ultimately, in order to beat ISIS, we must find the strength to truly understand who they are, and in the process, understand who we are ourselves.
Qiang Zhang is a Trinity freshman. Her column usually runs on alternate Fridays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.