Why do terror groups keep making the same mistake?

I was reading on CNN earlier, and it seems that the UK is seriously considering joining the US’s coalition (presumably of the willing :p) to fight against ISIS/ISIL. There are also some other countries lining up or at least willing to say they MIGHT join in. When I was reading the CNN article about the UK it struck me…how stupid are these ISIS/ISIL clowns anyway? Why are they making the same mistakes that got both the Taliban and AQ smacked down?

To take a step back, the mistake I think they are making is to annoy nation states (and worse, the general populations…the VOTING populations), especially those in the west (US, UK, Europe in general, etc) to the point where they actually contemplate active military operations against them? I mean, after Iraq and Afghanistan (which is still an ongoing sore in both the UK and US), I’d have thought it would be pretty tough to get either the US or UK to even consider expanding military operations in the region again. Most citizens, and certainly the political powers in charge in both countries were pretty gun shy about dipping our military toes in the region again…at least, that was my feel. We both managed to stay out of the Syria situation pretty well, and were winding down in Afghanistan, having already left Iraq.

Yet, here we are again, talking about air strikes and perhaps more. And in a pretty short time frame too…talk about ISIS/ISIL only really started to get on the US radar maybe 6 months ago. In that time, however, ISIS/ISIL has sort of come out of the wood work, doing everything they can to annoy the shit (or scare the shit) out of regional and global powers, openly perpetrating a series of deliberate massacres and atrocities and graphically and with full fanfare executing civilian hostages and generally being in our collective faces.

W…T…F? I mean, why? The West wouldn’t even bat an eye if ISIS/ISIL did their little attempt at unification of a new caliphate thingy from the shadows or behind the scenes, especially if they had some sort of cover story and plausible deniability for atrocities and such, instead of bragging about them. If they had stayed in Syria and fought Assad, hell, we might have given them covert aid to do whatever the hell they wanted. We might not have even balked if they had entered Iraq if they did so in a less spectacular way, though there is oil in them thar hills, so perhaps that would have been a trigger no matter what. But it’s like these guys didn’t learn any lessons from the US lead invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. That lesson being, don’t come out in the open where we can throw big hammers at you, and instead make the US et al feel guilty about every death and wring their hands at every mistake, and be sympathetic. Hell, the British people, according to the poll in the CNN article, are actually on board with at least limited UK involvement in yet another military adventure in Iraq…something I didn’t think I’d ever live to see. And a Democratic president and administration that had done, IMHO, a great job of extracting us from Iraq and lessened our involvement in Afghanistan an kept us out of Syria (and limited our involvement in Libya) is now pushing for an expanding role in fighting these new idiots.

What is it about wanting to confront the US/West head on that these guys haven’t learned is a bad idea yet?? To me, it just seems so stupid, when there are other ways to skin this cat that would have us just watching and maybe making some vague statements of disapproval but not lifting a finger.

I’ve made the point before and got castigated for it, but I stand by it. We in the west do not understand the way the people in the mid east and Asia think. Different cultures, different education systems, different religious traditions, different values bring about vastly different attitudes.

You ask a good question. Damned if I know the answer, but I am sure it is rooted in as I’ve said above.

Why do you think they don’t want this? Sure, the Taliban is scattered, sure, Al Qaeda is scattered, but radical Islam in the middle east has never been better.

Why do terrorists in the Middle East keep making the same mistakes?

Why do Western nations keep getting involved in land wars in Asia?

Human stupidity is my best guess for both questions.

Why do we keep responding in the same exact way every time?

Serious Question is there a good reason we don’t send troops to secure an area and build schools/hospitals/infrastructure in that area and just stay there and let anyone who wants those things help us secure more areas for the same treatment? I mean if you are going to spend trillions of dollars killing people it seems like you could at least spend billions making their lives better instead.

  1. They’re not these James Bond super villains they’re often made out to be. In fact, they’re really fucking stupid and half the time the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, they have weak leadership and no overreaching strategy.

  2. They’re part of the same global social media / selfie culture as we all. Many of them post their stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and wherever because they get satisfaction out of having friends and followers and all the rest. It’s the banality of evil. See: they’re really fucking stupid.

  3. They need to stay relevant for the whole Internet Islamist Community. For this reason they need to be on the Internet front-page. Al Qaeda is currently sulking because ISIS has stolen their spot in the limelight and are desperately trying to stay relevant so they can attract financing and recruits – and just because of ego.

  4. They bought into their own propaganda. They believe they have God on their side and are invincible.

  5. They have the usual idea that the West is decadent and weak.

  6. Their success against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan have made them think they can push the USA to overextend and collapse in the same way.

  • but mostly, they’re just really fucking stupid.

Is that what they want, though? I’d expect the leaders of ISIS to be more concerned with themselves and their exact vision than radical Islam in general. Even putting aside their personal egos and desires for power, anyone else would (obviously) do Islam wrong.

There’s just no political will to give money to people who aren’t Americans. Most Americans agree that we should cut government spending, but if you ask them what to cut, the only thing that a majority are actually willing to cut is foreign aid cite (which accounts for about 1% of the federal budget but which people seem to think accounts for like 20%).

There’s really no political will to stay at war, either. People get riled up and support the initial invasion, but before long, there is growing sentiment that we should not be there, and increasing political pressure to withdraw.

Democracy is not very good at maintaining support for long-term projects through adversity. Or at math.

Guys, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

The entire point, which nobody has ever tried to hide, is to lure the West into costly and unpopular wars. They have said as much, plainly and clearly.

It’s win-win: the West wastes money and resources and erodes its political unity and global influence. And the bad guys get nice pools of angry people in ruined countries with a legit beef who can provide foot solders for generations.

The fighters are just as snowed as we are. You can recruit unemployed young men with any half-baked ideology, as any warlord and “revolutionary” leader can attest to. But their fighting is never about the cause. It’s about whatever social experiment the people bankrolling it are trying to achieve.

This is not a mistake to them. Violence begets violence, they are counting on it.

I agree with even sven – this not a mistake on their part, but rather the desired effect. If you read some of the interviews OBL gave prior and after 9/11, it’s clear his intent was to instigate global jihad.

It’s the same with ISIL.

You almost hit the nail on the head. I agree with everything you said except for the part about the west wasting money and resources.

They might not want peace, but neither do we. ISIS is the perfect enemy to justify defense spending near 5% leading to new weapons and new technologies.

Ok, but it didn’t work out very well for AQ or the Taliban, and thus far getting the US involved hasn’t done much for ISIS/ISIL either. They were actually doing pretty well against Syria and making gains in Iraq, but then they pushed it too far and now they are being pounded. And OTHER Muslim groups are taking up arms against them as well. Far from having any sort of desired effect, what it’s going to cause is yet another pounding from the US and whatever coalition we put together. It’s already starting to happen in Iraq in fact, as the US coordinated strikes with Kurdish groups to push ISIS/ISIL back in the north and give them a big bloody nose.

I’m not seeing how any of this helps the stated aims of ISIS/ISIL to be honest. Ok, so presumably we will kill a bunch of them, and this will cause some Muslims to get pissed off and join their ranks (though, again, this didn’t seem to swell AQs ranks very much in the long term, and in fact they have been related to the sidelines at this point). Where is step 2 so that they can get to 3) PROFIT!!?

I think I’m inclined to go with those saying they are idiots at this point, if this is actually their master plan, if they in fact WANT the US/allies to come in and pound the crap out of them just when they were starting to do well.

Because killing people is an investment in defense. It helps us learn how to better kill people the next time, leading to greater national security.

Building new things in a war zone or third world country tends to be on par with throwing money away, as was the case in Iraq.

I think you’re underestimating the religious aspect here. These are fanatics in the literal sense. They believe they are fighting with Allah on their side. It’s not common sense or logic.

For the same reason Syria inexplicably used chemical weapons, knowing it would drag the West into their civil war:

It’s all staged.

Who has said this? Who has said that victory is not their goal?

We’ve been in Af for over a decade and we’re about to leave, the Taliban will be back in control in 2 years. We lost, why is that so hard to understand?
We won what in Iraq? We didn’t go there to fight AlQ but to pursue the democracy as magic fantasy of the Neocons and Liberal Interventionists (Clintonistas). That failed, we lost and in losing created the new AlQuedas that have spread all over N Africa and the Arab homeland.
Go back and read some history, we haven’t won a war in a long damn time, why would ISIL think twice about poking us with a stick? We ain’t near as scary as Adrian Peterson…

Ok, so, appropriate user name and post combo there. Extra points for that.

A close reading of my OP will show that the word ‘won’ isn’t in there in conjunction with either Iraq or Afghanistan. Your screed/rant about Republicans or neo-cons or whatever is irrelevant to the actual questions I’m asking. There are over a decade of rants against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan…feel free to go look through them.

As for the Taliban, that’s pure speculation on your part that they will be back in power in 2 years. Even if true, it’s been a long hard grind for them, costing them a hell of a lot (including control of the freaking country they HAD for over a decade now). So, I’m not seeing the big win for them there. AQ has pretty much been crushed and is irrelevant at this point, so I’m not seeing the big win for THEM either. New ‘AlQuedas’ can’t exactly point back to the stunning success of their predecessors when it comes to poking the US…the fight they started with the US cost them pretty much everything.

Which brings us back to my original question, now stripped of your rant…why do these groups keep making the same mistakes? I know why WE keep making the same mistakes…we is stupid. I’m not asking that question either. I’m asking why THEY keep making the same mistakes.

Clearly nobody can answer this unless you are able to define what “victory” is and who is seeking it.

The goals for the senior leadership are different than the goals that they are selling to the ground level troops. That is a phenomenon as old as war itself.