Caught up, in flames

A week after the Iraq War began in 2003, The Onion published a debate piece entitled "This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t". At the time, it was a not so satirical point-counterpoint from an all too comical source. Yet today, 13 years later, it reads a lot more like a prophecy fulfilled.

Throughout the duration of last week’s Paris attacks, I could not help but think what it must have felt like to watch 9/11. The unsettling cacophony of vulnerability, anger and grief left me wondering what comes next. I don’t remember much about 9/11 other than being picked up from school by my mom. I do, however, know about the consequences—I’ve been watching them every year since.

Right now, if only for a few days it seems, people are grieving. But many are already calling for action, and they are right to do so. ISIS has proven its capability far beyond what anybody could have hoped, and the sustained existence of a violent theocratic state likely surpasses the threat that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda ever did. François Hollande called the attacks an “act of war,” and less than 72 hours later, he validated that claim by ordering the French air force to begin bombing Raqqa, Syria. That action, decisive and severe as it may be, feels justified. But it also feels a little too familiar.

I know full well that The Onion should be taken with an extra grain of salt, but that article depicts a reality that has arrived in almost every aspect of that description. The point here isn’t about lamenting the decision to enter Iraq—it happened. Debating its merits, or lack thereof, descends into a cyclical, partisan and unproductive conversation about a presidency none of us can change.

The point should be about the still-developing ramifications—an aftermath that has dragged into the current presidency and very well threatens to continue on into a third. It should be about the precarious situation the Paris attacks thrust the global community—and specifically the Western world—into once again. There will be a response to ISIS, and the hammer will almost undoubtedly fall much harder than it has in the past couple of years. But achieving a victory over ISIS will not and cannot fill the vacuum that so many politicians are eager to recreate.

Jeb Bush is ready to declare war. Hillary Clinton isn’t even sure if we should take a leadership role. I don’t necessarily think either end of the spectrum is correct, nor do I think they’re both wrong. Interventionism and isolationism have both contributed to the creation and proliferation of ISIS. If the primary goal of the War on Terror was to ensure that there would never be another 9/11, how can we look at what happened last Friday in Paris and call it a success? The situation is a mess, and it's one that’s only gotten worse. My concern, and one that I would hope that key decision makers are truly taking into account, is that we don’t deepen an already festering wound.

Nathan Eckert may be fictitious, but several lines from his article in The Onion continue to ring surprisingly true. He perhaps put it best when he wrote, “This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher… it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western influence.” If that sentiment doesn’t predict a world in which ISIS runs rampant, I don’t know what does.

But there’s the paradox: the United States can’t sit idly by while a caliphate hell bent on destruction continues to inspire terror worldwide. To eradicate this threat, the United States and Europe—hell, even Russia—must further entrench themselves in a region that has clung to “boots on the ground” like quicksand. There are few effective options that constitute something less than war and even fewer alternatives for filling the leadership vacuum that inevitably will follow.