| dc.description.abstract | The greatest and gravest dangers to international security and peace is no longer military threats
from rival great powers but transnational threats emanating from the world’s most poorly
governed countries. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the emergence of a terrorist threat
with global reach in the form of Al Qaeda, the first decade of the new millennium marked a low
in the number and severity of armed conflicts worldwide. This situation has blossomed and
become more threatening in comparison to the last decade. The purpose of the study was to
investigate mechanisms employed by international community in managing Islamic states. It was
guided by the following objectives: To investigate the evolution and continued growth of Islamic
state and its effect to international peace and security, to investigate the strengths of Islamic
states as a threat to global peace and security and to investigate challenges faced by international
community in managing Islamic states. Owing to the nature of the research study, qualitative
research design was employed. With reference to qualitative literature review, a number of
existing literatures were used for this purpose, consisting mainly of reports and studies from the
UN, research institutes and NGOs, articles, journals, internet, reports, theses, and archives
among other sources and media accounts. Findings revealed the international community is
pursuing a policy to reduce the financial resources available to the Islamic State focuses on
disrupting IS revenue streams, limiting the group’s access to formal financial systems, and
imposing sanctions on the group’s senior leadership and financial facilitators. The international
community also has imposed sanctions against Islamic State officials and their external financial
backers. The Department of the Treasury designated 12 individuals for their role in soliciting
funds, procuring military equipment, and recruiting foreign fighters, two of whom are based in
Syria and are associated with the Islamic State. The study concluded that U.S. military options
should be evaluated in this broader context. Ultimately, U.S. military options should be
deployed in the service of a broader political and diplomatic strategy. A more aggressive U.S.
military posture in the absence of a deeper, coherent strategy is unlikely to bring Syria closer to
resolution, improve humanitarian conditions, or minimize regional spillover. In fact, such
involvement could exacerbate the situation. Moreover, greater U.S. military involvement in Syria
must be assessed not only in terms of whether it would bring Syria closer to resolution. The
impact of military engagement must also be measured on an Arab world that is fraught with
tension and in the midst of destabilizing change. Across the region-from North Africa to Egypt to
the Levant and the Gulf-U.S. engagement has been met with suspicion and at times, outright
hostility. Policy makers and military planners therefore must also assess the impact of greater
U.S. military engagement on this volatile region more broadly. The study recommended that the
air strikes campaign should be complemented with the creation of a national guard in Iraq that
includes representatives of the country’s Sunni as well as Shia communities, in order to prevent
the Islamic State from playing on Sunni grievances, and with the strengthening of the only
remaining moderate opposition coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, the Southern Front. | |
