Please, let’s stop denigrating the intelligence of our enemies.
I do, in fact, think there are some extremely smart people involved with ISIS. A lot of stupid cannon fodder, too, but a group doesn’t have the success they’ve had without someone with smarts having a hand on the tiller. If nothing else, they’ve got some people with military and social intelligence, and some wicked PR types that are succeeding in recruiting people to their cause.
I realize that’s not as satisfying on a certain level as “hur, hur - they sooooo stupid” but as a general rule you’re better off facing reality.
^Not to mention that the smart ones have managed to get the “cannon fodder” to sign up and do the dirty work, especially the dying, for the smart ones. Of course the stupid ones think they’re doing it for some ideal.
That doesn’t mean that the smart ones aren’t true believers too. An idealist can definitely believe that some lives should be sacrificed for the Cause, while other, more important lives are preserved.
Also, watching execution videos online is not good for your health. I can’t believe anyone would sit and watch all of them. That’s a bit disturbing. I’m fortunate to have never seen a full one (I caught a glimpse of a gif once but when I realized what was happening I turned it off).
As far as whether the US gets involved or not, ISIS is such a cartoonish villain that the entire world should stand up against them and crush them. If the US is the only major party willing to do that, then shame on the rest of the world, but that shouldn’t stop us. I’m a big believer in the idea that the US has caused a lot of terrorism because we have embittered a lot of folks in the middle east by getting involved in revolutions and wars we had no business being in, but in my heart, I see pure evil in ISIS and I say throw everything we’ve got at them.
Nobody likes ISIS/ISIL. But I have doubts that they can be disposed of with brute military force. We need to address the root cause of why people want to join this group. I suspect it has a lot to do with there not being much else for these people to do with themselves, and a little bit to do with trying to reconcile religious values with the modern world. What is needed is political stability in the region, which was pretty much destroyed when Hussein was toppled and Assad crippled. We may not like despotic governments, but despots are better than anarchy.
Apparently the US right wing thinks that the problem is that Obama is unwilling to say that it’s ISLAMIC terrorism rather than TERRORISTS perverting Islam.
This is a great article. Anyone that wants to better understand ISIS’ motivation and their view of the world should read it. It is lengthy but well worth the time.
Interestingly ISIS members in regard to the Koran are somewhat similar to extreme fundamentalist Christians in regard to their view of inerrancy of the Bible. Although ISIS has taken the banner of medieval punishment and sharia law and brought it’s enforcement into a 21st century world, primarily for the hope of bringing about the Apocalypse. They want the US to come to Iraq and Syria and fight them there. It is part of the fulfillment of Koran prophecy. They believe that their numbers must be defeated down to around 5,000 before Jesus will return as the Messiah and save them all.
Messiah may be too strong from an Islamic point of view. But they do believe that Jesus will return in the end days and defeat the al-Masih ad-Dajjal (“the false messiah”, also known as the Antichrist).
It’s really not. It gets some things right, but also gets a lot of fundamental things wrong. Far better is Shadi Hamid’s take on this (and his Twitter feed has a nice, probably overly-charitable criticism of Wood’s article):The Roots of the Islamic State’s Appeal - The Atlantic
Potato, potahto. Masih, like messiah, means “anointed one.” It is generally believed that Isa (Jesus) will return to rule as an envoy of Allah after the Mahdi redeems Islam. Christians think Jesus will do the fighting in the End Times, and then rule; Muslims think the Mahdi will do the fighting, and then Jesus will rule.
.
Precisely. The key is to try to find out the underlying issues that are causing some people to affiliate themselves with the likes of ISIS although I’m sure that’s much easier said than done.
I can’t see how Hamid is contradicting Wood at all. They are writing about two entirely different things. Hamid barely mentions ISIL. When he does he actually supports one of Wood’s points: That ISIL should not be lumped in with other Islamist movements, even violent ones like Al Qaeda.
Again, Wood is seeking to understand ISIL on its own terms. He acknowledges that they are far from the mainstream of even Salafist thought. That is a key point of his article.
It sounds like ISIL really ISN’T like all the other revolutionaries. They don’t want to establish a new order. They want to bring about the End Times. Interesting.
I suppose the ignorance of groups like this is what makes them annoying without really being a serious danger to the human race. They’re ignorant enough to not realize that the U.S. will simply annihilate them with tactical nukes if they go too far. This makes them overconfident. Their overconfidence makes them bold, which gives them the courage to do really fucked-up, inhumane things that make most humans lose all compassion for them.
However, if they understood that they’re only allowed to go so far before they get annihilated, they might choose more stealthy, long-game tactics, which could make them actually more dangerous in the long term. An overconfident idiot is easy to protect yourself from, even though he’s far more annoying (in an immediate sense) than an informed, calculating opponent who is patient enough to strike only when success is assured.
I can buy the End of Times stuff as far as some of the rank and file foot soldiers (ie useful idiots) are concerned, but I see no reason to believe that al-Baghdadi is anything but a cynical egomaniac who’s much more interested in running his caliphate in this world than the next.
On that note, I heard a story on NPR today – actually I think it was rebroadcast from BBC – that society in general in ISIS-run territory is not ticking along very well, because when they took a given town, everybody who knew how to, e.g., operate and repair the electric power plant and system fled. (Presumably because such experts amount to an economic elite locally, at least to the point where they would have the resources to pack up and flee.) And ISIS’ own troops have very few technical experts among them. Likewise with running the banks, etc. You can’t run an industrial-era society on zeal, you need brains and knowledge and skills.
I don’t think we saw ISIS coming . . . so now I wonder, are there any other undercurrents of radical Islamist thought today that are far from the mainstream of even Salafist thought, but far from it in different directions than ISIS’, and might at some point in the future erupt to produce some similar political phenomenon with different doctrine?