Calls to the West for intervention to stop the spread of the Islamic State are louder than ever. The easy answer appears to be more tanks, guns, and boots on the ground. None of these are a bad idea but they do not appear to work. We know this after 13 years of doing just that because it has yielded less than desirable results. As a student of history, which as they say has a tendency of repeating itself, I am hesitant to go down that road again. What could work and has worked in the past may sound like a stupid idea. But at what point does a stupid idea become not-so-stupid? What if instead of sending in more soldiers, we gave ISIS piles and piles of cash?

The thought of funding terrorists probably makes your pulse quicken, the veins in your neck start to bulge, and there’s likely a few beads of sweat forming above your brow. Perhaps there’s even an icy chill that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end.I know that this might be your reaction because that is exactly how I felt when I found a similar strategy from ten years ago that actually helped the cause.

Fund Terrorism?! I thought. That’s insane!

Maybe it is. But it’s worked in the past. Let’s first of all understand that the best ideas for stopping ISIS are really just the least bad ideas and in that case, I would contend that there are no stupid ones. We’ve found ourselves nose-to-nose with one of the most horrible manifestations of terrorists the world has ever seen and the best solution may be the craziest.

In 2005, after hundreds of American fighters had been mowed down in the dark nether regions of Fallujah, General David Petraeus did something controversial but effective: he put over 100,000 Sunni militants on the payroll. He also negotiated peace talks between Sunni tribes. From 2007 to 2008, American losses dropped 66%. Whether he personally liked them or not, he knew the Sunnis had the influence to slow the fighting down and wake up the locals to push back against terrorist regimes which ultimately led to less American losses. What would become known as the ‘Anbar Awakening’ would ultimately fuel the success of the 2007 ‘New Way Forward’ strategy, otherwise referred to as the infamous ‘Surge.’

There was a learning, though. If nothing else, in combat situations the United States has an unparalleled ability to bring the boom. However, what we struggled with during previous engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan is successfully taking a stand in the most undesirable terrain known to man against a contingency of stop-at-nothing religious fanatics. For those that don’t know, they subscribe to a very violent sect of Islam known as Wahabi. We learned that Wahabists were better equipped to handle urban and guerilla warfare on their own turf with unguided RPGs mounted on goats than we were with laser guided missiles and tactical assault rifles.

So why is it now that we face an even stronger threat who is an even more sophisticated and ruthless enemy than it’s predecessors are we so quick to forget that lesson? More troops, more bombs, more bloodshed? No thanks.

Now what would they do with that money? The same thing every other third world country does with the money that we give them. They agree to the terms we set and then lie to us just enough about what they’re actually doing with it to make sure the money keeps coming in. At the end of it, who cares? As long as there’s a reduction in genocide, headless journalists, and generally less discontent then I’d say it’s a win.

But the money! You might contest. What if we give them money and it doesn’t work? We’ll have to send troops anyway! What a waste…

That’s a very astute observation! I would argue at the end of it, does it matter? It’s not like we’re going to run out of money. Even if we did, we’re not likely to balance the budget by not going to war. The financial collapse of 2008 taught us that the amount of money we have is a consequence of how many zeros a nameless bank teller who lives in the basement of the Federal Reserve (who I’ve arbitrarily named Bob) types into his magic money computer box. So, if at the end of it all we decide that giving money away to make the craziness in Iraq and Syria stop actually isn’t going to work, then we’ll have Bob type in a few more zeros and we will always have the option to unchain the full force of the military to bomb them back into the stone age.

Ironically, it feels like ever since the stone age the violence in the Middle East has expanded from what would appear to be smoldering embers of disconnected jihadis who are simply defending Islam to a blazing inferno of vicious genocidal ideologues who will stop at nothing to manifest the ultimate Islamic State. The world has been captivated by the brilliant flames of moral ambiguity, unrestrained violence, and political unrest. While boots on the ground feels like the only way to stamp out the flames, the idea of using cold hard cash to take all of the oxygen away from fueling the fire would be a low-low price to pay for no more dead Americans.

Think about it and consider yourself briefed.