Response to "How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We Are Failing"

Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS before killing 49 people and inuring 53 in Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Another ISIS affiliated attack has raised an important issue we have all been thinking, "How do we win the war against ISIS?"

In "How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We are Failing," published on The Clarion Project.org, author Jennifer Breedon acknowledges a fundamental problem commentators and political strategists have while covering ISIS in the press. Commentators, political strategists, everyday American citizens, have proposed banning guns to gun control policies to more love and tolerance as a solution to stopping the violence. However, as Breedon points out, we already have a legal obligation to stop ISIS.

The European Union, the United States, and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have all declared that ISIS is committing genocide, a declaration that comes with a powerful legal obligation to act. Article 1 of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states, "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [countries] undertake to prevent and to punish."

As Breedon acknowledges in the article, the Untied Nations' Responsibility to Protect Mandate dictates nations must work collectively to completely eradicate a genocidal threat using collective security.

But that hasn't happened. The collective security measures of the United States and the European Union are failing. Genocide in the Middle East is real, and thousands of innocent people are dying at ISIS' hands. The Security Council must pass a resolution to stop ISIS' genocidal campaign to uphold the Genocide Convention, but no such resolution has been passed.

However, I disagree with Breedon on one fundamental point. Breedon writes:

"This is not a "hate crime," nor is it a "lone wolf" attack where an individual in Miami decided one day to kill people. This is an act based on a genocidal ideology on a mass scale, and there is a legal duty to work together with our allies to prevent further innocent bloodshed." 

Yes,  ISIS is currently conducting genocide in the Middle East. But there is a fundamental difference between those who claim allegiance to ISIS and those who are ISIS fighters. There have been no ties found between ISIS leaders and Omar Mateen.

"Genocide" has a very specific legal definition, one that Omar Mateen does not fall in. Genocide is a very distinct crime that goes beyond all other human rights violations. It is the crime above all crimes. While the issue falls in a murky legal definition, there is an important distinction. For an act of mass murder to be classified as genocide, the attack must be on a group with the intent of its total destruction. Motive is also incredibly important. In genocide, the motive is the extinction of the group. Mass killings are generally used for other instrumental reasons. While I am certainly not an expert on Omar Mateen, nor do I know the mindset he had concerning the attacks, it appears his actions would classify more as Mass Murder. He was one cog in a big machine, deeply disturbed and looking to cause violence. His act was violent and deplorable beyond words, but this does not mean he wanted to systematically destroy all homosexuals. The legal difference is important.

Despite this, I think Breedon drives home an important point that news agencies and our government continue to neglect: ISIS is committing genocide. They have "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part" a multitude of peoples: Assyrian Christians, the Yezidis, Shia Muslims, and an assortment of other minorities, and we have a legal obligation to protect them.