Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

A Few Remarks On ISIS

Posted by Phoenix Woman on September 13, 2014

A few points regarding ISIS:

1) The Kurds and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army have been begging for months for some help against ISIS. Even many Sunnis are souring on them, as ISIS likes to kill even Sunnis who don’t meet their purity standards.

2) For those who think that ISIS’ beheadings are all about luring the US into a quagmire: Not every terror attack, not even those by Al Qaeda, is about tricking people into invading Iraq. The Madrid and London bombings were done to make Spain and the UK stand down, not double down, on their involvement. Furthermore, the latest beheadee isn’t an American, but a British aid worker. Does anyone think this was meant to get the Brits to invade Iraq?

3) ISIS is not Al Qaeda. They’re just one of many Sunni groups working the armchair-jihadi grift in the Middle East. They got kicked out of Jordan because the Jordanian security apparatus was a lot tougher than they were, so they fled to the jihadi-filled area just east of the Golan Heights (an area that for some reason never gets attacked by the IDF that rains bombs down upon Gaza, even though it’s well within IDF missile range) and to the largely empty wastelands in western Iraq. They hit the jackpot two years ago when the Saudis and Kuwaitis started their efforts to topple Syria’s Assad Baathist government, but even with boatloads of Saudi money they still couldn’t topple Assad, so they contented themselves with nabbing a few undefended oil towns on the Syria-Iraq and Kurdish frontiers so they could keep the money rolling in. (Trouble is, they killed too many engineers and the oil production machinery is starting to fall apart: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/03/business/defterios-oil-isis/ )

4) If anyone thinks that US bombing is going to increase ISIS’ numbers, I suggest they think again. From http://pando.com/2014/09/03/the-war-nerd-the-long-twisted-history-of-beheadings-as-propaganda/ :

IS was on a roll, overrunning lightly armed Peshmerga and village militias, before the US ruined everything by authorizing drones and airstrikes. It must have been damned annoying, being an IS fighter, bouncing over the plains in your Toyota Hilux, as the terrified Iraqi Army forces vanished ahead of you in a cloud of panicky dust. Quite a rush for the mix of AQI survivors and European-Muslim war tourists who fill IS’s ranks.

And then all of a sudden, you go from the dashing light-armor knights of the Iraqi plain to the biggest, most vulnerable targets imaginable—thin-skinned vehicles crawling over a completely flat, treeless plain while the drones buzz overhead, armed with Hellfire missiles, just waiting for authorization from a desk jockey in suburban Virginia before they release a weapon designed to destroy much bigger, tougher, Soviet tanks. Suddenly, you, with your Sunni Lawrence of Arabia war-tourist dreams, are nothing but a bug getting zapped by an automated pest-control device.

It’s insulting. And the kind of young men who join IS are romantics, of a sort. They might not mind dying in the abstract—most guys don’t, at that age, until they find out what it feels like to get shot in the stomach—but they hate the idea of dying in such an unchivalrous way.

One Response to “A Few Remarks On ISIS”

  1. Charles II said

    Sorry, I don’t think this passes a few simple reality checks.

    The US has been using drones in the tribal parts of Pakistan, in Ethiopia, and in Yemen. This has not discouraged the terrorists at all. Now, in theory drones are a lot more precise than carpet bombing. But that’s only if there is really good intelligence, In actuality, they have induced a high incidence of PTSD. If you wanted a list of the best indicators of who is likely to become a terrorist, PTSD would be on the list. Add the humiliation of powerlessness, and people get a lot less concerned with staying alive. In every place that the US has used air power as the primary strategy, terrorist strength has increased.

    In the days of the “Sunni Uprising”, the IS was “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. The US routed them, killed a lot of their members, and displaced them from Iraq. While the IS is not all that different from al-Nusra or many other jihadi groups in ideology or tactics, it has been more successful, because it has exploited Sunni grievances–although, as the article says, it has made some serious missteps as well, giving the peshmerga and the central government forces an opening. But the IS s likely to learn, mend its fences, and regain strength.

    We should not freak out about ISIS and overreact. Neither should we let it fester. It doesn’t take more than a few hundred or a few thousand well-armed and destructive people to create a very large problem.

    The solution is political, but military force is required to give the political system time to regroup. We need to see that radical Islam is a worldwide problem and, as I said from even before the Afghanistan invasion:

    The defeat that the terrorists cannot endure is a defeat in the court of Muslim public opinion. Terrorists should be treated as criminals, albeit criminals with massive firepower. If possible, they should be captured and tried for crimes against humanity. The United States should take steps to redress massive injustices in Muslim lands, including the slaughter in Indonesia, which we facilitated [27]. To reprise Raymond Close’s penetrating words: “[T]he most effective defenses we will have against the terrorist threat [are] a commitment to the rule of law, dedication to fairness and evenhandedness in settling international disputes and a reputation as the most humanitarian nation in the world.

    Finally, you ask, “Does anyone think this [murder of David Haines]was meant to get the Brits to invade Iraq?”

    The UK is debating whether or not to get involved. What do you think that the murder is likely to do to public opinion in the UK?

    Now, ISIS’ strategy probably has backfired, and made both the US and the UK reflect on their response. But was the beheading of David Haines meant to get the UK to send troops? Pretty clearly, yes.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: