Even a stopped clock is right once in a while. That was the case when Obama addressed fighting ISIS by addressing its economic grievances.
No matter how many times it’s tried, the military approach seems to be the one that first comes to mind for many Americans. Quite a few have even argued that we should be arming rebels to fight ISIS. Anyone who knows anything about the history of US military intervention in the Middle East should recognize this as a horrible idea. Saddam was once a CIA operative. Al Qaeda was armed and trained by the US military to fight the Soviet Union.
Indeed ISIS was essentially an offshoot of Al Qaeda and it has been reported that much of the weaponry used by ISIS is of US origin. So how can we say that the method used over and over again has been effective. Partly because of this and partly to look for non-violent solutions, some, including Obama, have argued that we should use economic means to “fight” ISIS.
This has spurred a lot of outrage by the “right” and even a few memes, including one referencing Nazi Germany. That was an ironic misstep by those who wanted to mock the idea. After all, it was largely the economic distress of post WWI Germany that led the Germans to follow Hitler’s ideology.
It is also an established idea that increased socioeconoic interdependence reduces violence. When people need one another, they are less likely to attack each other [1].
This does not mean that we should just give resources to our enemies. It does however mean that the people of the world should work with these depressed regions. It also means that we should stop bombing the hell out of them. It’s difficult to become economically viable when your infrastructure continuously gets blown apart. Essentially the government should get out of the way and the market should take over. And yes; it will take over.