Posted on 02/16/2015 10:22:09 PM PST by SMCC1
"What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors."
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Thanks for posting this, it is good to see an article with some depth for a change.
Maqdisis was involved in the 1979 Grand Mosque seizure.
Mr. YAROSLAV TROFIMOV (Reporter, Wall Street Journal): “about 100,000 people appeared in the Grand Mosque of Mecca for the dawn prayer. What they didn’t know was that all of them would become hostages within minutes of the prayer beginning. A group of jihadis, several hundred jihadis, from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, but also some Americans and Canadians - converts to Islam - had entered the mosque with weapons, overpowered the guards, shut down the gates and proclaimed the arrival of the savior, the Mahdi, that would cleanse the Muslim world from its impurities brought in by the Westerners.” —————————NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112051155
That’s one version... this is the Pakistani version which omits the French and substitutes Pakis:
http://muslimglory.blogspot.com/2011/08/1979-pakistani-special-forces-ssg.html
Where I do NOT agree with the article is when it basically endorses the Obama policy of containment and gradual degradation of ISIS. For one thing, this subjects the Kurds and moderate Iraqis to a very prolonged war and continued horrors. It also assumes ISIS can be contained - a foolish assumption: These people may be 7th century savages in mindset, but they are cunning as Satan. The author evidently has not considered that now ISIS has popped up in force in Libya.
ISIS wants a BIG fight, and if they don’t get it, they will learn and do what is necessary to make it happen. That means, I believe, assuming no real change in US leadership, killing Americans. Lots of them.
The author also assumes that because the US (ie., Obama) blew it in Iraq, we will do so again, merely causing the cycle to repeat. I would argue that we too, can learn — if we can avoid electing another foolish lib, that is!
The author further neglects the presence of moderate Sunni tribes in the Sunni (now Isis controlled or pressured) parts of Iraq, who are already pleading for help (as in weapons) to re-establish their security. These tribes would be powerful, but we de-fanged them after taking out Saddam.
Now... It might not be necessary to wipe out ISIS entirely in battle. One idea might be to simple take Dabiq (it is not a large town, only 3400 people or so, in 2004). Remove any remaining civilians (there can’t be many), level it, and scatter around some moderately half life radioactive material to keep anyone away for 20 years...
Yes, see my #25...
"...Yet in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini went on to tell his radio listeners, "It is not beyond guessing that this [the seizure] is the work of criminal American imperialism and international Zionism." Muslim anti-American global demonstrations followed in the Philippines, Turkey, Bangladesh, eastern Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Resentment enthused by these rumour on November 21, 1979, the day following the takeover, a mob in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, burned the US Embassy to the ground. The demonstration grew violent as protesters pulled down part of the outer wall and broke into the compound itself. The five-hour siege began as an organised student protest outside the locked gates of the embassy compound. Gunfire broke out, and the marine, who was standing on the roof of the building, was shot. A week later, this resentment swept to the streets of Tripoli, Libya, where a mob attacked and burned the U.S. embassy there on 2 December 1979. The attacks were believed to have been triggered by a radio report from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, saying Americans were behind the occupation of Islam's holiest site, the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, The US State Department has described the broadcast as "irresponsible, outright, knowing lies". ...........--------- http://iranian.com/main/blog/iqbal-latif/seizure-grand-mosque.html
If the entirety of Dabiq were routed, would that make a difference to ISIS/Daesh?
This is spiritual, it is evil, it is the devil.
Reading the OP article, it looks like Daesh/ISIS has found a power in being absolutely graceless.
Perhaps this will end up being so odious to “moderate Muslims” that they decide to unite against it.
According to the article and the prophesies, yes. But to really make it stick, I’d make the place uninhabitable for a generation...
The destruction & radioactive poisoning of Dabiq could be accomplished very quickly, so, the rise in “recruitment” that the article’s author fears would likely be brief, I’d say. Granted, I don’t think the West will leave the place glowing for 20 years...
Still, one way to fight these people is to “wreck” the prophesies.
Occupying it with an infidel army might be another way to do it, if the place is important to them.
A country like Russia would not quail about doing this.
Here is an article on the mentor of Baghdadi, al Maqdisi:
ISIS is doing what it is doing because it can get away with it. By doing what it is doing, it has communicated that it believes only in the language of extreme violence and death.
Therefore, extreme violence and death should be communicated to them until they stop their murder.
Nothing else will work, because they acknowledge nothing else.
It’s really very simple.
I think some have committed to fight it: Abdullah & Sisi, for example, and some of the tribes in Iraq and Syria. The Kurds have had no choice but to defend their lands. But the above can’t do it alone with only limp-wristed U.S. help.
“Moderate” Muslim forces tend to be a mixed bag. The Iraqi Armed Forces are a particular disappointment. This force has approx. 271,500 active duty, 528,500 reserve, and training by the U.S., yet ISIL / ISIS is mostly kicking their you-know-whats.
Yeh. Why are western countries holding their passports? Let them go, but don’t let them return.
I thought the point about the difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS being that the existence of ISIS was utterly dependent on having land, that is, the territory of their “new caliphate,” as proclaimed by their “caliph,” Al Baghdadi, is vital. Take away the land they have seized by killing them and retaking it, and they evaporate.
But that’s going to mean ground troops. Bombing alone isn’t going to do it, unless we’re willing to do saturation bombing of any inhabited area of their territory, causing a lot of collateral damage.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, because it depends on attempting to impose Islamic law on existing countries through fear and gradual acquisition of legal power, is a different matter.
A long occupation, Russian style, would likely bring in lots of recruits to ISIS. Also, there is Russia’s experience in Afghanistan to consider.
“Removal from existence” should work better.
Oh, good grief. If poverty was the problem, at least 3 billion of the world’s inhabitants would be behaving worse than ISIS.
Take away the land and they won’t evaporate as claimed either, they’ll just remerge with AQ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.