The world is a crazy place. We have ISIS and their likes, crazy in their methods and philosophies. And then, we have the likes of Trump who have equally notorious approaches. Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska pretty much embodies the latter group. And yesterday, we saw the perfect unison; arguable a perfect marriage of sorts: she took the stage of Trump and endorsed him. Her speech was bizarre to say the last. The opening sentence, for example, required the audience to celebrate Trump for his ‘private’ background. Was she implying that the private sector was more transparent than the public sector of America? Anyone who has done even a cursory skimming of the economics of the recent past, would laugh off this claim. Does this sentence imply that the richer you are, the better candidate you can be for the position? As Trump is not running for Pakistani elections, this claim too makes no sense. Did she mean that he was untainted by the working of the government working practice? I don’t think anyone can really claim that naivety is a positive in any situation.

And yet, the two will make a powerful couple. Their ridiculousness might be funny; even disgusting for the liberal chunks, however, in a world of today where fandom charisma and consciously selected obliviousness is in fashion, the union goes a step further, it becomes scary. Palin insisted that Trump was radical and it the need of the time. He would, she insisted, act what needs to be done and not care about political correctness. She was specific on her mention of ISIS. Trump apparently will fight the war that Obama had avoided and what was, as the applause ensuing indicated, what the crowd wanted.

The Iraq war was a disaster, the afghan invasion a mistake and the intervention directly or indirectly in both Libya and Egypt remain hallmarks of exacerbating situations. And yet, as it turns out, people want more war. They want more interventions. They want the American boots on ground even though their earlier stampedes have caused the world more harm than, say, Kim Jung On coming to power. The radicalization post the interventions, the collapsing of governmental and societal infrastructure, the abuse of human rights, and the hatred spewed against democracy, the rationalization of violence and so much more are all the results of these interventions. Of course ISIS too was a result of such interventions. Interventions are a bad decision. Common sense would dictate that the American people would have recognized this. Apparently, they haven’t.

That said, caution needs to be taken before completely taking the option of direct attack away. In all honesty, groups like ISIS cannot be fought against and won against without the use of force equal, if not more, in brutality. However, the said attack needs not to come from an alien army with their own selfish motives that have nothing to do with local and societal aspirations. The said force needs to come from within. The attacks coordinate and executed need to have local faces and local motivations. Only then can one expect a disbanded and distorted ISIS strength within their strongholds.

However, that said, the same was attempted by Bush in Afghanistan before the Iraq War. The first few years were dedicated towards a war that was hoped could rid the menace of Taliban by local warlords. Bush had promised them aerial support however the boots had to be Afghani. The local warlords had promised success. Some had even let go of generational fighting and hatred and had joined to fight against the Taliban. However, these were short lived. The motivations were always selfish. The warlords fought for money and power. Eventually, these two came in the way of the aforementioned alliances. The end result was that the American boots had to land in Afghanistan and crush Taliban strongholds. The success was meaningless as the locals saw them as aliens and did not relate to their fights or their victories.

These were American victories. Afghanistan as the profiling of the bad guy, was losing.

Obama has had tough decisions to make. He hasn’t, as claimed by Palin, being hesitant due to diplomacy or political correctness but has in fact contemplated if the interventions would truly do the superpower any good. The fight against these terrorist organizations is a difficult one. The conventional rules of war do not follow. No matter how much damage the forces causes to the terrorists, it all proves futile when a lone suicide bomber blows himself up amidst hordes of hapless civilians.

Trumps hopes of bombing the ISIS into extinction is a false premise. Maybe the Americans need to look over to their War on Terror partners. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have had a bloodied past but the stains have become less red in the recent past. The fact that both countries have taken upon to politically solve these issues along with military force could provide the next U.S. president when formulating their policy against ISIS. The final win can only be attained if the philosophy of the group is challenged and condemned by the locals. Cut off the supply and the group will suffocate itself soon enough.