Defeating 'Islamic State'

The "Islamic State" (IS) does not have to be contained. It has to be destroyed: militarily at first, but then politically, by breaking the allure of jihadism and drying up the sympathy for it. Foremost, the IS terror militia has to be fought. As if of their own accord, expectant eyes have turned to the United States for that task - and then to the entire West. NATO has, in any case, established a ten-party coalition of the willing to combat IS forces. Among that group is Germany, although the country currently intends only to lend political support to what's likely to be a military campaign.

The stuff of nightmares

Yet it's clear to everyone: The war against IS in Iraq and Syria cannot be led by the West alone, but only together with partners. If the US acts by itself, or together with the UK, the mission would be immediately labeled a "crusade" in propaganda terms. Allies in the region are needed: first of all, Iraq itself, and its Shiite government now valued by so few. Iraq's army, however, is demoralized and weak. In addition, the central government in Baghdad has many opponents: among them, Sunni tribes and - probably operating behind the scenes - the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The central government would thus have to engage in a two-front war, something they cannot do.

Another potential partner in the fight against the IS militia sits, of all places, in Damascus: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose rule the West has thus far opposed. Collaborating with the dictator would be disastrous and is actually unimaginable. But IS cannot be defeated without Assad. This is a political nightmare - after all, the West has been trying to overthrow Assad for some time now - but it's likely unavoidable realpolitik.

Allying with yesterday's enemy - a necessary evil

Then there are the Kurds, who are now being supplied with weapons. But one can already predict that if they win, the desire for an independent Kurdish state will be overpowering - something no one really wants. And finally, Iran, which has held back but would intervene should Iraqi Shiites really get into trouble or even if Shiite shrines in Karbala were ravaged. And where are the Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? For them, it's quite inconceivable to fight suddenly on Assad's side or with the Iraqi Shiites, so they refrain. Perhaps that's also to avoid offering areas of attack for enemies within their own countries.

A strong coalition against IS

IS can only be opposed by a broad coalition. That would have the effect of demonstrating several things: that everyone is fighting the fundamentalist insanity of the "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; that no one wants the tyranny of a prehistoric, anti-modern Islam; that the war against jihadism is a justified war; and that everyone wants the Middle East to remain an area of religious coexistence in which Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and adherents of other faiths can live together. Otherwise, the frenzy of an Islamic theocracy will consume a culture whose heritage stretches back more than 1,200 years.