It was calm day for a group of people in the Turkish town of Suruc before a suspected Islamic State suicide bomber detonated his cursed explosives. The gory attack resulted in the untimely death of 32 innocent persons. The first attack on Turkish soil by the Middle Eastern militant group, which controls vast swathe of land in Syria and Iraq, sucked it into the conflict.

Turkish F-16 jets raining bombs at rebels in the border areas with Syria did not take people by surprise. They claimed to have killed over 30 militants but independent sources put the rebel toll at around 10. Turkish soldiers also clashed with the militants while the country allowed the United States to use a key border airbase to launch attacks on IS.

Turkey was in a state of denial for months over the threat by the IS militants. It was also accused of looking the other way when militants from all over the world allegedly were misusing its air and land facilities to join IS cadres across the border. The policy of inaction and denial resulted in the Suruc mayhem, and a hasty decision to join the war against IS.

Most countries have failed to learn the basic lesson that the stability of a nation begins from its borders. Instability and warfare in neighboring states can cause multiple disasters. The foremost is the influx of refugee fleeing the conflict. It has always been difficult to close doors on people running from wars. Humanitarian considerations force even unwilling countries to absorb those who need refuge.

The other important but devastating result is the spillover of a conflict from one country to another. It becomes easier when the group(s) involved in fighting refuse to accept the traditional border lines and instead try to push the conflict to other states. In the case of Syria, the Islamic State would like to expand the fight so that recruitment and movements could become easier.

The Turkish problem, like the problem of Saudi Arabia, is how to reconcile dislike for the Syrian regime and the deepening IS threat. The mutual misgiving between Turkey and Syria created a set of difficult policy choices for Istanbul. The officials first relished the chances of a regime change in Damascus and even supported elements fighting against forces supportive of President Bashar al-Assad.

As happens in such messy conditions, the fighters change positions and often new groups emerge in the process. The shifting loyalties by the rebels and the entry of new groups have changed the ground realities in Syria. Countries like Turkey looking for a change of guards in that country are on the back foot as the likely successor of al-Assad might be caliph (sic) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Surely, the Turks would not relish the change, as about a century ago they fought hard to get rid of their own brand of caliphate.

The Turkish entry into war with jets sending down bombs is not going to end the problems. Time is important in decision making and Turkey wasted a lot of it already. Also, the key in the fight against armed movements is clarity of policy and decisions. Militants need to make quick, resolute and firm responses. Several countries suffer as they first waste time in deciding to fight and when they do, they often employ inadequate techniques. Dropping bombs from the air without forces on the ground to clear the mess has often proved futile.

Pakistan is a case in point. It suffered heavily due to delayed decision making. It wasted more than a decade in either planning to hold talks with homegrown Taliban or resorting to employing unfocused military operation to dismantle the militancy. It failed badly. The success in recent months came after a policy shift to fight out the militants on the ground. It was clear for the planners that militants only understand the language of force. They matched the decision by using the military in a proportion needed to defeat them.

The Islamic State is not undefeatable. At its best, it is group of 'motivated' people who are ready to die. With a strategy and resources in hand, IS can be defeated like any other group of militants.

Everybody should know militant movements only work while they are economically viable. The success of the Islamic State is due to its resources to pay for weapons and other necessities. Second, no militant group can sustain itself without outside support. There are signs and reports that some states see an 'opportunity' in the current conflict and that is one reason why IS is thriving.

The writer is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/SajjadMalik.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)