On October 25 of this year, the Islamic State’s leader Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi and his successor were killed in back-to-back attacks by
United States forces in northern Syria. The killings of high value targets have
been a part of US security policy for years, particularly throughout the war on
terror, but the question remains today whether or not this decapitation is
actually helpful in combating terrorist organizations.
In the days following the death of al-Baghdadi, the group
broke its silence to confirm their deaths and to announce a new leader for the organization.
They ended the message with a warning for America: “Do not be happy.” Al-Baghdadi’s
death is clearly not the end of the Islamic State. The group endures as a
low-level insurgency in parts of Syria and Iraq, carrying out attacks and
preying on civilians to fund its operations. It has also diversified, with a
string of wilayats around the world. Though it will likely never again
hold as much territory as it once did, it will remain a threat, and the
conditions that allowed it to rise have largely grown worse.
At this point, it is necessary to consider how HVT actually help
in achieving national security goals. “Mowing the lawn” so to speak by eliminating
IS leaders was necessary in the case of Osama bin Laden because of what he
represented in the overall conflict. However, al-Baghdadi was largely inactive
in the region at the moment. Killing him did not necessarily achieve any real tactical
or strategic goals, rather, it was more so a momentary political win for the
Trump. In addition to this, it is very possible that this action may have
galvanized the Islamic State in the present situation in Syria. Al-Baghdadi’s
successor, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi, is largely unknown to the intelligence
community and this creates a level of ambiguity surrounding the future of the
IS. It will be interesting to see how al-Baghdadi’s death will impact the
situation on the ground in the near future, if it does at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment