Global Coalition To Defeat IsisEdit
The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS emerged in the wake of rapid advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a period when a determined extremist organization projected a territorial political project across large swaths of territory. The coalition was formed to prevent mass atrocities, restore security to affected populations, and deny ISIS the space to govern through fear. Its approach blends air power, advice and training for local forces, and sustained diplomatic and economic pressure, with a heavy emphasis on working through regional partners and respecting applicable laws of armed conflict. While the project is multinational and sometimes controversial, its stated objective is straightforward: degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS as a functioning territorial threat while creating conditions for stabilization and governance that can outlast the group’s defeat on the battlefield.
From the outset, the coalition framed itself as a coalition of partners rather than a single imperial machine. It brought together states in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond with the aim of coordinating military operations, curbing ISIS financing, and fostering regional security architectures that could withstand the group’s propaganda and coercive tactics. The coalition’s work is often described in terms of three interlocking pillars: a decisive military campaign to neutralize ISIS’s capacity to wage war, serious capacity-building support for local ground forces, and diplomatic efforts designed to stabilize liberated areas and prevent a relapse into chaos. The overarching logic is that a long-term victory requires both force and governance, not force alone.
Origins and Framework
The coalition's formal initiation in the mid-2010s followed ISIS’s sweeping territorial gains and its brutal violence against civilians. The aim was not only to reclaim land but to halt a project that sought to reshape the region by force. The coalition operates through a structure that coordinates air operations, intelligence sharing, and training programs for local security forces, while also applying sanctions and diplomacy to isolate ISIS financially and politically. The overarching framework centers on working with local and regional partners who bear the primary responsibility for ground operations and governance in liberated areas. The approach recognizes that sustainable defeat of ISIS hinges on local legitimacy, effective governance, and the disruption of ISIS’s ability to reassemble and recruit.
Key terms and actors
- The campaign against ISIS is conducted through a multinational framework led by United States and supported by dozens of member states and regional partners in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.
- The group commonly referred to as Islamic State is the target of this effort, and the coalition seeks to degrade its capabilities and prevent its return to power.
- Local partners include the Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces, whose operations are often complemented by international training and advice.
- Regional dynamics, including the role of Turkey and relations with neighboring states, shape both the execution of operations and the political outcomes sought in post-conflict environments.
Composition and Partners
The coalition is not a single army but a network of states, international organizations, and security partners committed to a common strategic objective. The United States has played a leading role in coordinating military operations, alongside allies in the NATO framework and partners in the European Union. Among regional participants, key players include states that have long argued for a robust stance against ISIS’s ideology and governance, as well as those that seek a balance between counterterrorism and the preservation of their own sovereignty. The coalition also relies on the support of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates for regional security personnel and counterterrorism capacity-building, while maintaining close working relations with Jordan and other states with a direct interest in stabilizing the borderlands and preventing refugee flows.
Ground forces engaged in operations on the battlefield include movements such as the Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (an alliance of local militias and fighters in northern and eastern Syria), as well as various forms of local security arrangements in liberated cities and towns. The coalition’s approach emphasizes that real victory depends on durable local governance and the ability of partner security forces to maintain security after ISIS loses its territorial footholds. In many cases, this means long-term training, logistical support, and integration with local administrative structures.
Military Strategy and Operations
Operational planning centers on a calibrated mix of air campaigns, targeted special operations, and advisory support to ground forces. The air component seeks to degrade ISIS’s command and control, interdict its supply lines, and prevent mass casualty attacks, while minimizing civilian harm through precision engagement and strict rules of engagement. Training programs aim to improve the effectiveness and professionalism of local security forces so they can secure liberated areas, maintain order, and deliver essential services to civilians who have endured years of displacement and disruption.
The coalition’s strategy also encompasses economic and diplomatic measures designed to choke ISIS’s financing, disrupt its illicit trade networks, and reduce its appeal to potential recruits. This includes enforcement of sanctions, counter-finance measures, and international cooperation on border security. Stabilization efforts—often conducted in concert with international organizations and regional governments—address essential services, governance capacity, and reconciliation processes that help communities resist returning to conditions that allowed ISIS to thrive.
Controversies and debates are an intrinsic part of this approach. Critics from various quarters have pointed to civilian casualties arising from airstrikes, the displacement of populations, and the complexity of post-conflict governance in areas that ISIS once controlled. From a practical standpoint, the view within the coalition is that minimizing civilian harm is imperative and that robust intelligence—coupled with precise targeting and proportional use of force—reduces unnecessary suffering. Proponents argue that, in the face of a brutal adversary, tough choices are sometimes required to prevent large-scale massacres and to deny ISIS any opportunity to metastasize again.
Ground Forces and Local Partners
A cornerstone of the coalition’s approach is its reliance on local ground forces, which shoulder the primary responsibility for reclaiming territory and securing liberated zones. The Iraqi Security Forces have played a central role in retaking major cities and restoring governance in parts of Iraq. In Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces have been a key partner in offensive operations against ISIS-held territory. These groups, along with regional security partners, form the backbone of the coalition’s on-the-ground effort, while international partners provide training, intelligence, and logistics. The aim is to empower capable local actors to assume security responsibilities and to enable sustainable governance structures to take root in places previously controlled by ISIS.
The coalition’s collaboration with regional actors is not without friction. Differences over post-conflict governance, the prioritization of secular versus sectarian protections, and the balance of autonomy for minority communities have sparked political debates in some member states. Nevertheless, supporters argue that stable governance in liberated areas is essential to prevent a power vacuum that ISIS could exploit again. In this context, the partnership with Kurdish forces, notably the Peshmerga in Iraqi Kurdistan and allied groups within Syria, has been strategically important, even as it has complicated relations with neighboring states that view Kurdish autonomy movements as a security concern.
Controversies and Debates
Controversy centers on several points. Civilian harm from air operations is a persistent concern for humanitarian actors and critics of war. Proponents argue that ISIS’s brutality—ranging from mass executions to systematic population coercion—necessitates a decisive military response and that coalition forces operate under strict legal frameworks, with ongoing reviews of strike accuracy and civilian protection measures. The endurance of long, low-intensity campaigns and the risk of mission creep are pointed to as potential flaws, with critics warning that a protracted external intervention could entrench political divides or fuel anti-Western sentiment if not paired with credible stabilization and governance efforts.
Another area of debate concerns the role and behavior of regional partners. Some observers worry about overreliance on local militias with complex domestic agendas or human-rights records that complicate reconciliation and post-conflict governance. Critics also focus on the political ramifications of the alliance with regional governments that have uneven rights records, arguing that stability should not be pursued at the expense of universal rights. Supporters counter that counterterrorism efforts must be practical and multilateral, and that successes in defeating ISIS reduce the risk of mass atrocities and regional spillovers that would otherwise threaten neighboring states and global security.
From a pragmatic vantage point, critics of “woke” or highly prescriptive critiques argue that the primary obligation of the coalition is to prevent massacre and reduce the threat ISIS poses to civilians. They contend that calls for withdrawal or refusal to engage with regional partners would cede initiative to ISIS, inviting renewed mass violence and regional destabilization. In this view, the moral justification for decisive action rests on the prevention of genocide, the protection of civilians, and the restoration of stable governance as a prerequisite for lasting peace.
Effectiveness and Legacy
ISIS’s territorial control has been decisively rolled back in many corridors, and the coalition has disrupted the organization’s revenue streams, leadership networks, and ability to project force across large distances. The capture of key urban centers and the disruption of ISIS’s governance structures have reduced its capacity to operate openly and challenged its appeal. Nevertheless, the persistent threat of insurgent activity, clandestine networks, and potential reconstitution in remote or ungoverned spaces means vigilance remains necessary. The coalition’s longevity is measured not only in the recapture of land but in the resilience of local governance, the security of civilians, and the integrity of regional borders after the fighting ends.
The long-term success of the coalition hinges on how effectively liberated areas can transition to stable, representative governance, how quickly displaced populations can return home, and how well local security forces can maintain order without reigniting sectarian tensions. As ISIS is degraded but not entirely erased, ongoing intelligence-sharing, periodic training, and diplomatic coordination continue to form the backbone of efforts to sustain gains and prevent relapse.