Let’s keep this very simple, if the United States decides to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) we lose, if we decide to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) we win. A key reason behind this assessment is the fact ISIS does not exist, it never has existed. The only place where ISIS gets any sort of traction is in United States media publications. If one were to check Arab and Kurdish based newspapers, such as Al-Arabiya and Rudaw, you would find ISIL mentioned far, far, more often than ISIS.
How ISIS became a common term in the United States is a simple one, it’s easy to say. The name also carries with it current borders within the Middle East, namely Iraq and Syria. Although the Syria that ISIL refers to is not the current border of Syria today. Instead the S, what we call Syria, ISIL calls al-Sham. Their version of al-Sham is more akin to Greater Syria, which in the west commonly referred to as the Levant. Therefore, it is very easy to understand why United States media, and at times, the US government have used ISIS as the preferred nomenclature of a barbaric terrorist organization. Yet ISIL itself does not go by the name ISIS, why should it? It has no bearing on their stated goals or intended borders. A fight against ISIS would only be a fight against ISIL’s short term goal, which is just to remain in existence. It would be wise to understand a bit more about the intermediate and end goal of ISIL.
ISIL, under Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, has declared itself a Caliphate. It isn’t but sometimes perception is greater than reality. It is however a de facto state whether or not other countries want to deem it such. To be a true Caliphate the Caliph must control the Islamic Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. This is one of the chief rolls of the Caliph outside of constant border expansion is to secure and administer over these cities directly. Look at the title of the King of Saudi Arabia, the current and all the former kings. In what is a very robust title, one part is of particular significance, “Custodian of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina”. All the Kings of Saudi Arabia have been a caretaker, a placeholder, who would be replaced by a Caliph- an administrator. To reach Saudi Arabia, ISIL has a few different paths that they can try to take. All of which under the current setting seem impossible. This is ISIL’s intermediate goal, capturing the cities of Mecca and Medina, but without a doubt the first city is always Mecca.
From that perspective let’s look at different ways ISIL can gain entrance into Saudi Arabia with the goal of capturing Mecca.
To begin, the most likely path to Saudi Arabia would be from Syria, into the Iraqi Anbar province, then into Saudi Arabia. However, this would still leave them a far distance away from Mecca, needing to cross the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula while trying to fight against a fully armed, modern, Saudi Arabian government backed by US support. This path would be as destructive to ISIL as it would be to the countries they move through.
Next, now this is where the “Levant” aspect of ISIL matters, is to march out of lower Syria through Jordan, and into Saudi Arabia. As long as the Kingdom of Jordan maintains governing stability this route will also lead to the decimation of ISIL forces. However, a destabilized Jordan, can be much easier to navigate. There will be many disenfranchised Sunni’s that ISIL can target for recruitment from both Jordan’s indigenous population and refugee population. While unlikely now, if ISIL persist for five or more years this becomes a real possibility.
Finally, the last route to Saudi Arabia ISIL has may be the most unlikely but, at the same time, the route they may like the most. Instead of moving directly south as the previous two routes indicated in this example ISIL moves west into Lebanon. Then down through Israeli/Palestinian controlled areas toward the Egyptian Sinai. Thinking of the big picture the previous two routes would force ISIL to move across most of Saudi Arabia, also it would remove a true Caliph from any route that would help in gaining control of Jerusalem; a city a Caliph also needs for legitimacy. ISIL already has a strong presence in the Sinai so the most difficult part would be moving men through the Palestinian lands and Northern Israel. Once into the Sinai moving directly south one could follow the coastline directly to Mecca. In this instance no need to cross Saudi Arabia, just move down.
In following path three ISIL would also benefit from the most captured territory. For a Caliph to be legitimate in the 650 to 1300 AD sense, he would need to continually expand borders. That is an amorphous long term goal. Since borders can always ebb and flow losing for a year doesn’t fully delegitimize a Caliph if he can expand either elsewhere or in the following years reclaim that lost land.
This is what ISIL desires. Fighting against ISIS would leave out all the aforementioned countries not named Iraq and Syria. Defeating ISIS still means ISIL is present in the Sinai, still means ISIL is attempting to recruit disenfranchised Sunni Arabs in Jordan, Palestinian Territories, and Egypt. Most important beating ISIS still means ISIL actually exists (short term goal achieved).