This is one of the best articles I've ever read about ISIS and their ideology:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/.
It's a little bit of a commitment to read .....it's longer than most of my posts
, but it does give a fairly straightforward analysis. For me, I am as struck as anyone else by the horror of their crimes against humanity, but reading this helped me to understand
why they are doing what they do. In other words, their atrocities are not haphazard; rather they are part of what drives their religious vision. The author makes several points, and from that, you can decide for yourself whether or not going to war on the ground against ISIS is something that the US
should even attempt. I'll try to bullet point some of his assertions here, from memory:
- The west has a significant misunderstanding about what ISIS means when they talk of a "caliphate". The west remembers the last caliphate - the Ottoman Empire - as a national entity, with borders, that engaged with other national entities either politically, militarily, or commercially, and whose leader was a political position.
- The ISIS version of a caliphate does not permit national borders, including their own. Further, the author claims that the ISIS version is the only version that is true to the medieval Koranic texts. Thus, their goal is not to capture and hold political territory.
- EVEN IF they were to eventually be recognized as a nation by the United Nations and offered UN membership, ISIS would refuse to join, because they do not recognize the concept of nationhood, national identity, national government, or national borders. ISIS would view the UN as simply another entity to be burned to the ground on its way to establishing the final caliphate.
- ISIS holds to those interpretations of the Koran which are medieval, because they believe that those are the only "pure" texts. According to ISIS's Koranic interpretations, there will be something like 12 Caliphs (the Imam who is appointed by the elders of the faith), and the current Caliph—Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—is the 8th.
- ISIS believes in an end-times prophesy that is initiated with the establishment of the final (12th??) caliph. Their end-times prophesy is an apocalyptic event, culminating in an epic battle between the army of Rome and the army of the Caliphate on the plains of Megiddo, after which the prophet Jesus (yes, Muslims believe that the same Jesus worshipped by Christians was actually a prophet of Islam) will return and the Uma will be restored all over the earth. Sound familiar? If it does, that is because it parallels Christian Biblical prophesy, the battle of Armageddon (on the plains of Megiddo, surrounding Har-Megiddo), and the return of the Christ to rule on earth. ISIS is never very specific about what the army of Rome means, other than it being an obvious reference to the Crusades.
- In fact, ISIS believes it is in a war against the crusaders.
- Some evangelical Christians believe that Jesus will return when all people groups have been reached to spread the gospel, and that by redoubling efforts to reach all people groups sooner rather than later, Christ will return sooner rather than later. (This is a simplified explanation.) Similarly, ISIS believes that it can hasten the battle at Megiddo and the return of the prophet by violently and aggressively promoting the caliphate. Of course, the huge difference is that Christians try to hasten the 2nd coming by sharing and spreading the love of Jesus Christ, and ISIS tries to hasten the 2nd Coming by fire and the blade. Christian missionaries offer medical care and emotional support. ISIS missionaries burn them in an iron cage.
- When ISIS burns prisoners alive and commits other atrocities, they are are literally following the commandments of the medieval Koranic texts. According to their understanding, these atrocities are necessary. They completely understand that they are atrocities, but they are committed to the notion that committing these atrocities is necessary to hastening the arrival of their end of times vision.
The article is much more complete and includes a lot more information than just these bullet points, but it also infers at some conclusions. One is that ISIS will eventually burn itself out for a number of reasons, which I won't bother to list here, but the point is that the author implies that a boots on the ground military intervention may not be successful for a number of reasons. As Cedar Park Dad pointed out, ISIS is being contained, and that is the very best we can hope for.
Also, "converts" to their cause are pouring in by the thousands from other nations. The author had conversations with some of these people before publishing the article, and from those conversations, he offers the following conclusion:
Within the narrow bounds of its theology, the Islamic State hums with energy, even creativity. Outside those bounds, it could hardly be more arid and silent: a vision of life as obedience, order, and destiny. Musa Cerantonio and Anjem Choudary could mentally shift from contemplating mass death and eternal torture to discussing the virtues of Vietnamese coffee or treacly pastry, with apparent delight in each, yet to me it seemed that to embrace their views would be to see all the flavors of this world grow insipid compared with the vivid grotesqueries of the hereafter.
I could enjoy their company, as a guilty intellectual exercise, up to a point. In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.”
The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure—especially when it is also a burden. [
emphasis mine]
Fascism, Orwell continued, is
George Orwell wrote:psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life … Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet … We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.
Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.
In my own view, I am tempted to advocate against any kind of military intervention beyond what is already being done. My reasons are:
- The United States of America should never again commit to a "police action". The ONLY such venture we've ever NOT lost was in Korea, and that was a draw. That draw stopped the advance of communism in Korea, but it also cost us 36,516 American dead. For better or for worse, the United States lacks the political will to fight another full-scale war. That is sad, but it is a fact. And we can NOT successfully eliminate ISIS by any other means than putting a full-sized invasion force on the ground. If we commit to a full-scale war against ISIS, we are committing to accepting the deaths of thousands of our very best - many of whom are already burned out from serving multiple tours in Iraq/Afghanistan.
- If the US were to commit to a full-scale war on the ground against ISIS, all it would accomplish is to pin ISIS in place, while tens of thousands of Islamist radicals would pour into the war zone from other nations. What a lot of Americans are failing to comprehend is that ISIS has supporters almost everywhere in the world. It is sick, but it is true. Supporters come to fight with them from all over Europe, Australia, even the U.S. So, even if we were ultimately successful, it would be a very LONG commitment......one which American taxpayers are probably no longer willing to support...... and because they are not willing to support it, going to full-scale war will be the political death of whichever party advocates for it.
- Muslim nations have shown themselves to be culturally unable to accept the consequences of American-style full-scale war on their territory. During the Normandy landings, French civilians were killed in the thousands, and yet, Americans are very well received in Normandy (if not all of France) to this very day, because the people of Normandy understand that losses were inevitable, and that those losses were the price of freedom. Nobody understands or accepts that anymore......most especially amongst our own naysayers.
- Since ISIS is not a national entity, but instead is operating in the existing nations of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lybia, and Lebanon, and is currently threatening Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, the international complexities are just too vast. Securing the unrestricted permission and cooperation of the "host" nations would be impossible. EVEN IF some of the nations cooperated, not all would, and that would mean differing ROEs based on geography.....in the same war zone. It is a strategic impossibility. Similarly, putting together another "coalition of the willing" would be impossible. Italy actually fears an ISIS invasion, and currently Italy can only raise 5,000 active duty combat troops. Libya, where ISIS is operating in the open, is only a little over 100 miles away from the Italian boot, and ISIS has thousands of fighters it can commit to Italy if it wants to......fighters who are willing to perform the most bloodthirsty acts to terrorize Italians into submission. Italy would never join such a coalition, and yet of all European nations, it is probably most at risk.
- So the upshot is that the ONLY way that a ground invasion works is a unilateral full-scale American invasion, with the full cooperation of all affected national interests. Not gonna happen.
Personally, I think ISIS is a fact of life for the next couple of decades. The author of the article I linked to above posits that ISIS will burn itself out in time. I tend to agree. George W. Bush understood that Islamist terrorism crosses borders, and he believed that by bringing the WOT to the terrorists, would fight them over there instead of here. Major Nidal Hassan promptly put paid to that idea by bringing the WOT to Fort Hood. The middle east is a write-off, the victim of a vicious interpretation of its dominant holy scriptures. To fix it,
THEY HAVE TO FIX IT THEMSELVES. As long as they think they can pay Americans to fix it for them, they will never commit to doing whatever it takes to crush ISIS. ISIS, for its part, absolutely IS fighting a religious war, on ground belonging to people who share a somewhat milder vision of that same religion. Because those people hold to a form of Islam that believes it is a sin to kill Muslims, they will not fight a war against fellow Muslims, even if
those Muslims burn their children alive. They just won't, because they are culturally and spiritually unable to. And if
they won't, then
their lives are not worth
our sacrifice. Period.
The temptation to barbaric retribution is strong (I just deleted what I though we should do with them). The problem is that barbarism plays right into ISIS's hands and feeds their own propaganda machine. You can't
shame them into civility because they mock it openly. They deride more moderate Muslims as "moderns", and believe that they are bound for hell. According to their lights, they are doing Allah's work by decapitating children and burning Christians alive.
I think the best that we can do is commit to protecting the US of A, right here at home. Fire that traitor we have in the White House, and get someone who will actually defend the borders. Profile people who want to enter. They have no
right to enter, so they do so only on our terms..... and that means that if you are a young male who fits the profile, you had better be able to account for your whereabouts and actions before entering, or we simply don't let you in. And frankly, that is about all that our struggling national economy can support. We need to fight this thing as if it is a war for OUR survival, not the WORLD's survival. If the rest of the world cares about their survival, then they will do whatever it takes to ensure that, even if the price is to give up their hedonistic enjoyment of socialism. If they are not willing to make those tough decisions, then the caliphate will make those decisions for them. Darwin at work.
But I no longer think that any of that is our responsibility. We have bled enough and spent enough many times over to try and establish order in the world, and the world isn't having any of it. We
owe the world nothing. Whatever debt we
might have had has been paid in full many times over. To hades with them, and let them sort themselves out. Meanwhile we look after our own.
I realize that my opinion in this regard may not be the popular opinion, but no matter how I game this thing out, it ends with a lot more young Americans dead, killed on behalf of nations who would urinate on their graves if they could. Not one of those nations is worth the sacrifice of one more American life. They are not worthy of that sacrifice, nor will they ever
be worthy of that sacrifice.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
