Alexander Evans

As policymakers and analysts wrestle with how to respond to the advancing ISIS extremists, there is a danger of falling victim to a pervasive disease in international politics which might be called “recent-ism.” This is the difficult-to-resist temptation to look no further back than the most recent crisis or analogy to develop policy. “Recent-ism” affects counterterrorism, too. It’s easy to get caught up in sweeping generalizations about how the threat is new and profoundly different.

Yet the actions of the group are not new nor profoundly different. Resulting policy responses can be robust, but the campaign against ISIS will likely take years, not months, to fully deliver. This is not an argument for waiting to think, but for thinking before doing.

Three pervasive myths have emerged.

The first is that the terrorist group is more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. That is not true. ISIS draws on the same ideological roots. ISIS emerged from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and was nurtured in Iraq’s sectarian trenches. Despite Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s self-proclaimed caliphate, the similarities with Al-Qaeda outnumber its differences. Both networks are vanguards of a presumed utopian revolution. Both use terrorist violence to advance their goals. Both seek to establish rule over peoples and territory, and are anchored in extremist ideology.

The differences are few. ISIS rebranded Al-Qaeda ideas into a personalized so-called caliphate led by Baghdadi; Al-Qaeda is struggling to manage a franchised coalition under a weakening Ayman al-Zawahiri. ISIS is systematically impatient; Al-Qaeda is patient and cautious in its terrorism. The differences are mostly about tactics and leadership, not underlying strategy.

The second myth, that ISIS is the new Al-Qaeda, is too early to call and also too simplistic. ISIS may be the new fashion in terrorism, the brand for any aspiring violent extremist. But becoming the preferred background for extremist selfies is not the same as building a new, multigenerational brand. Failure on the ground will damage this loose organization. The idea is only as powerful as a persistent supply of triumphs. If Baghdadi dies, if the group’s control over territories continue to be nibbled away at by coalitions of countervailing forces, the myth will crumble.

Moreover, claims that ISIS is the new Al-Qaeda play to a simplistic model of counterterrorism, in which analysts tally up who is on which side, carefully tracking statements and declarations of bayat, or loyalty. It remains too early to call amid a mixture of declarations of bayat, anti-Western and anti-establishment sentiment, and pragmatic maneuvering.

Some individuals within Al-Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan and Yemen have even hedged, expressing sentiments that can be interpreted as supportive by both sides. Reports suggest that Boko Haram has sworn allegiance to ISIS, but will the group in Nigeria take orders from Baghdadi? That’s unlikely. Does an expression of solidarity equate to full political agreement with all that the group stands for? Not necessarily.

As Al-Qaeda found under its late leader Osama bin Laden, affiliates frequently remain semidetached. That’s why opponents must track how the organization evolves.

The third myth is ISIS is more violent and extreme than Al-Qaeda. Wrong again. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was particularly violent, and other groups have shown equal appetite for high-definition, filmed barbarity. Al-Qaeda affiliates in South Asia as well as the Middle East have regularly attacked and murdered minorities, filmed murders, generated digital propaganda and recruited foreign terrorist fighters. The difference is that ISIS represents the cutting edge of the digital challenge: This younger and multinational group of terrorists tweet, text and radicalize in many different languages and produce high-definition horror videos to promote twisted ideas.

There are also three truths about the changing threat from ISIS and Al-Qaeda:

First, the threat has never been more complex. This is partly due to the extensive territorial control that ISIS and other groups have gained in Syria, Iraq and now Libya. It’s also a reflection of the more than 25,000 foreign terrorist fighters who have gathered under ISIS or Al-Qaeda branding from more than 100 countries. The foreign terrorist threat affects many, as individuals travel from and through countries that may not have experienced this level of terrorist threat before.

Second, the threat is complicated by the intimate links with plural local conflicts and grievances – from those in Nigeria to those in Syria and Iraq, from those in Libya to those in Afghanistan, from those in Somalia to those in Yemen and among large numbers of radicalized Europeans. The need is urgent for better evidence, detailed analysis and nuanced understanding of what emerging counterterrorism casework can reveal. Despite many day-to-day pressures, this is not optional. Such analysis is crucial for all countries to avoid being dragged into ill-considered policy responses.

Third, while the terrorism problem is about national security, it has a growing international dimension. No one country can fully respond without working with others – often many others. Such cooperation is not easy. If fixing interagency challenges within one government is hard enough, working across international borders on sensitive issues such as intelligence-sharing, passenger data-sharing and analysis quickly bump into cultural, legal and sovereignty-related boundaries. The need is great for multilateral and national responses along with effective work to bridge these various barriers. A range of countries are working more closely, not least in improved sharing of watch lists of suspects.

“Recent-ism” can have real-world negative impacts. Analogies and metaphors are powerful, sometimes helpful. Recent experience is valuable, but so too is the collective experience of policy successes and failures. If counterterrorism needs to protect against easy generalizations, international politics must protect against the ease with which one policy agenda can tower above others. The global terrorist threat from ISIS and Al-Qaeda associates is real, complex and requires a sustained countereffort from all states.

However, terrorism is not the only challenge to international peace and security, and nations should be wary of a narrow focus on terrorism alone. The current challenge is so difficult partly because of the interplay, often deep-seated, between terrorism and conflict. Solid analysis is one step toward considered and balanced policy responses with the greatest chance of being successful. These likely include active interventions alongside strategic patience.

With foreign terrorist fighters, this means upgrading strategic communications and targeting countermessaging and interventions on individual networks most likely to be at risk of radicalization. As a first step, those closest to existing foreign terrorist fighters probably need immediate attention: family members, close friends and social network connections. Preventing “domino radicalization” requires swift interventions. Equally important is assessing, rehabilitating, and where necessary, prosecuting those who return from a conflict zone having joined or worked with terrorist groups.

With ISIS’ territorial presence the challenge is greater, simply because of their footprint on the ground. Here, bullet point solutions are more elusive – but the value of strategic patience and building effective coalitions remains. The best actions are those that steal the rhetoric of victory from the terrorists and undermine their absurd claims to moral authority. Extravagant claims to be virtuous matter to the propagandists. Governments, communities and the media are in a position to undermine this. Such countermessaging is more convincing if accompanied by progress on the ground rolling back these groups where they hold territory, including the successful targeting of leaders.

Despite the onslaught of video propaganda, ISIS can be degraded – just as Al-Qaeda was. Like the campaign against Al-Qaeda, success will be measured in years. Governments have the advantage of years of counterterrorism experience, including the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. Evidence-based policies drawing on detailed analysis can help defeat ISIS.