ISIL, Muslims; good and evil

“Anti-foreign interventionism” has long been central to my politics. Coming from a young socialist background, I have been a staunch opponent of all sorts of imperialism, all the way. I was one of the most enthusiastic “anti-war coalition” activists before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. No regrets, I still feel the same anger about the neo-con U.S. policy that has turned Iraq into hell.

Nevertheless, nowadays, I feel seriously challenged concerning the issue of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It is not only ISIL’s barbarism, which poses a serious dilemma about choosing between my political anti-interventionist principles and the great human costs and suffering that ISIL creates. It is also the knowledge that another military intervention may not stop - or perhaps may even contribute to - the human cost, as happened in previous cases such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. It seems that there is no easy solution to survive this challenge, as in the case of the cold ice bucket challenge. So I can only contemplate a more inclusive international intervention of some sort to stop ISIL barbarity. After all, ISIL itself is also a kind of foreign intervention, since foreign fighters are traveling to other people’s lands in the name of a “noble cause.” If it is a matter of fighting between different causes, ours can be a humanitarian one, but it should avoid the political-historical baggage of the so-called “humanitarian interventionism,” which has mostly been used as a “cover” or legitimacy for power struggles up to now.

Still, ISIL poses more moral dilemmas concerning the question of who is to be held responsible for such horrendous religious ideology and politics...