Blog Power ISIS
George Larach
10.15.19
GPHC
10.15.19
GPHC
Blog Power ISIS
I will be analyzing the use of hard power in the conflict between the US and the Islamic State (IS) in 2014. Because the Islamic State was not prepared to negotiate and to employ soft power tactics, the US resorted to hard power in order to resolve the situation. The US organized an inter military coalition with 53 countries named the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR). They organized airstrikes against IS in mid 2014 and provided weapons, advisors, training, and supplies to Iraqi Security Forces and Syrian Democratic Forces. The bulk of CJTF-OIR's combat operations took the form of an air war against the Islamic State. The US was responsible for 75-80% of all airstrikes, while Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium and the Netherlands, among others, constituted the others 20-25%. It has been reported by CJTF-OIR themselves that over 80,000 IS members have been killed because of these airstrikes, but has also unintentionally killed 1,291 civilians. These attacks severely damaged IS infrastructure, killing numerous troops and damaging central bases of operation. IS refused attempts at negotiation, so immediately soft power and smart power could be ruled out. As of 2019, ISIS only retains two percent of the territory they previously held. A similar example to the IS terrorist group is the Taliban. The United States had attempted to negotiate with them, and they had been open to it, but always from a position of relative strength. As of late, Taliban and US relations have gotten colder, and are no longer negotiating from a friendly standpoint. Once again, the Taliban example is one in which soft power was attempted, but ultimately hard power prevailed.
Comments