This also sounds eerily like Iran without the foreign occupation and civil war. and it, too, is thriving:
"THE fall of an autocrat leads (to) a revolutionary movement with a messianic vision capitalizes on the chaos to gain power. The revolutionaries rule through terror and the promise of utopia... and inspire copycats... But other nations impose a quarantine, internal rivals regain ground, and despite initial successes the new regime seems unlikely to survive — especially once outside powers, including the United States, join the fight against it."
"THE fall of an autocrat leads (to) a revolutionary movement with a messianic vision capitalizes on the chaos to gain power. The revolutionaries rule through terror and the promise of utopia... and inspire copycats... But other nations impose a quarantine, internal rivals regain ground, and despite initial successes the new regime seems unlikely to survive — especially once outside powers, including the United States, join the fight against it."
Douthat coyly lays out the Republican's desire for war. Their candidates talk tough about taking it to ISIS. Most of them, like Bush and Cheney, cowards who refused to serve the country when called upon.
Other than blame Obama for the mess they created, what, pray tell, is the Republican's strategy for the war they so deeply want to wage against ISIS?
Their lies and hypocrisy are obscene. Chickenhawks all, they only care about their own ambitions and personal agenda's. They should be tried for treason.
ISIS --- other than blame Obama --- for the tragic mess Bush/Cheney
Other than blame Obama for the mess they created, what, pray tell, is the Republican's strategy for the war they so deeply want to wage against ISIS?
Their lies and hypocrisy are obscene. Chickenhawks all, they only care about their own ambitions and personal agenda's. They should be tried for treason.
ISIS --- other than blame Obama --- for the tragic mess Bush/Cheney
22
Comparing ISIS to the Soviet Union is nonsense. Russia's wealth in natural resources, industry and intellectual capital in the early 20th century were formidable. ISIS has one asset, the clueless US policy that is blind to reality, dishonest about events to voters, and continues to ship arms by the boatload to the Mideast, arms that always end up on all sides of every predictable conflict.
11
The public have been continually distanced from recogniizing the actual underlying problem that has engulfed the Middle East. We have seen the war in Syria as a distinct new war, a war we can blame mainly on Pres. al-Assad. But this caused us to accept a situation there that is so far without any solution. At the same time the problems there... generated actually by the continuing lack of any peace... seem to lack any other possible solution at all... and have continued to multiply.
We can even surmise that the Islamic State would never have gained power except possibly in Iraq, and elsewhere where there have been power vacuums. Thus the problem of the war in Syria can be seen as the worst thing that happened in the whole Middle East. Yet it not only has had to take a back seat, like to resolution of the questions of a Palestinian State, or peace of any kind between Israel and the 'Palestinians', but a back seat to developing problems with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and the possible dangers of that, and then to the trouble in Ukraine.
Can we please see: the main problem there is the tug of war between superpowers ... over Syria.
Because of the intransigent positions, it has effectively become a stalemate helping no one.
But Syria really means more to Russia than it so wrongfully came to mean for the U.S.
So the U.S MUST decide to align itself more with Russia's position on it.
This is also, almost NECESSARY to do NOW, to defeat ISIS there.
We can even surmise that the Islamic State would never have gained power except possibly in Iraq, and elsewhere where there have been power vacuums. Thus the problem of the war in Syria can be seen as the worst thing that happened in the whole Middle East. Yet it not only has had to take a back seat, like to resolution of the questions of a Palestinian State, or peace of any kind between Israel and the 'Palestinians', but a back seat to developing problems with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and the possible dangers of that, and then to the trouble in Ukraine.
Can we please see: the main problem there is the tug of war between superpowers ... over Syria.
Because of the intransigent positions, it has effectively become a stalemate helping no one.
But Syria really means more to Russia than it so wrongfully came to mean for the U.S.
So the U.S MUST decide to align itself more with Russia's position on it.
This is also, almost NECESSARY to do NOW, to defeat ISIS there.
1
Opinions as to whether ISIL is waxing or waning are relevant only to those militating for American intervention or retreat.
Arguing them sidesteps the real issue: the central conflict is a religious one, which will continue whether or not ISIL wins a few decades or centuries as the latest version of a Holy Moslem Empire. Suppression of freedom of religion ensures a continuing state of war, with or without US participation.
Arguing them sidesteps the real issue: the central conflict is a religious one, which will continue whether or not ISIL wins a few decades or centuries as the latest version of a Holy Moslem Empire. Suppression of freedom of religion ensures a continuing state of war, with or without US participation.
3
I am surprise that a serious writer like Mr Douthat asks such question. Of course IS can survive and even florish because all underline favorable conditions for such an organization to succeed exist. Not only IS touches the heart of many Muslims it corrects many injustices (civil and economics) that Muslims believe in and wish to correct. To many Muslims IS restors what they consider as lost honor and in the Muslim (even more in the Arab) world honor is everything. There is no comperison to Soviet Union’s early days or anything. IS emarged as an answer to Muslim messes at the right time and place and has a very capable management team. To base hopes on IS's fall on outside powers, including the United States, is nothing less than a joke. Part of the reasons for IS's sucess is USA behavior and policies under President Obama. There is only one solution to IS, total eradication and there is no one in sight that can do it and that is the reason why IS can succeed
1
"A revolutionary movement with a messianic vision ...Bolsheviks..." incisive opinion
"The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse."
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/understanding-isis/
"The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse."
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/understanding-isis/
1
I suggest Mr Douthat read Keegan's, "The Face of Battle" wherein he details how battles are won, and why soldiers stand and fight and win whether or not they have the upper hand. It's not about whether your enemy is more mighty. It's about will and lack of other options. This is how the Russians beat the Germans at Stalingrad. It's how the Afghans just kicked us out of their country, and it's why it will take locals to beat ISIS.
Americans want to fight ISIS on the side, while they concentrate on other things like earning money and living large. ISIS lives to fight. Their will is indomitable, and if they had the power of the US, they would certainly conquer the whole Mideast including Israel and probably North Africa. They have the will.
Turn a deaf ear to Douthat's drumbeat for war. The smart move is to not fight fights we really don't care about. If we did care, we'd have a draft, suggest that to suburban parents of teenage boys and find out just how much will we have to beat ISIS.
Americans want to fight ISIS on the side, while they concentrate on other things like earning money and living large. ISIS lives to fight. Their will is indomitable, and if they had the power of the US, they would certainly conquer the whole Mideast including Israel and probably North Africa. They have the will.
Turn a deaf ear to Douthat's drumbeat for war. The smart move is to not fight fights we really don't care about. If we did care, we'd have a draft, suggest that to suburban parents of teenage boys and find out just how much will we have to beat ISIS.
16
I confess. The major lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we are simply unwelcome intruders to all sides, and therefore little more than targets. Indeed, it is surprising that an Iraqi soldier has not gunned down one or a group of US soldiers. I imagine those getting close enough to US forces with weapons are screened so heavily that are troops are, for now, secure.
The point is that ISIS has about all it needs to become a viable government, except for water access.
This is devolving down to a full scale war between Iran and ISIS, a Saudi proxy.
It is difficult to imagine but Israel can from a smaller but parallel group of Jewish terrorists (remember Menachim Begin and, was it, the Irgun?).
The issue will devolve down to what support we will give the Iranians. Indeed, the nuclear agreement is more likely a step to military cooperation rather than a step to slowing their nuclear ambitions.
They can't beat ISIS with nukes.
The point is that ISIS has about all it needs to become a viable government, except for water access.
This is devolving down to a full scale war between Iran and ISIS, a Saudi proxy.
It is difficult to imagine but Israel can from a smaller but parallel group of Jewish terrorists (remember Menachim Begin and, was it, the Irgun?).
The issue will devolve down to what support we will give the Iranians. Indeed, the nuclear agreement is more likely a step to military cooperation rather than a step to slowing their nuclear ambitions.
They can't beat ISIS with nukes.
2
Douthat illustrates the vice of the all volunteer army. Obviously he wants to send that force to Iraq to fight against ISIS just as we fought against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and will always have somebody to fight in Iraq if we are dumb enough to go back. Most Americans don't seem to care about volunteer army casualties. (They volunteered, right?). The nation would never send a conscript army back to Iraq. No one would stand for it.
3
"The fall of an autocrat..."??? He just dropped dead? Remind me again how he "fell" out of power and was killed?
And then to jump to the Soviet Union.... Hmm, methinks thou dost protest too much, sir. Perhaps you should have boned up on your history prior to writing this column. But I realize it's a real stretch to figure out how to defend your buddies in the Republican party, isn't it? You and David Brooks are really struggling these days, trying to find ways to justify the unjustifiable and continue supporting the perpetrators. Fortunately for you, the party faithful who vote will believe every word you say. (Not so good for the country, though.)
And then to jump to the Soviet Union.... Hmm, methinks thou dost protest too much, sir. Perhaps you should have boned up on your history prior to writing this column. But I realize it's a real stretch to figure out how to defend your buddies in the Republican party, isn't it? You and David Brooks are really struggling these days, trying to find ways to justify the unjustifiable and continue supporting the perpetrators. Fortunately for you, the party faithful who vote will believe every word you say. (Not so good for the country, though.)
2
The only way to defeat ISIS is to let it grow until it must be dealt with on a world wide war footing. American troops getting picked off sniper style in alleys and side streets, mechanized convoys disrupted by roadside bombs, repeated clearing out then returning of the enemy to neighborhoods at great cost will not defeat ISIS.
Fanaticism cannot be dealt with rationally, and that is why Douthat's comparison to the USSR is silly. The correct comparison would be to Nazi Germany and that regime's corruption of everything from faith to nationalism.
Would Germany, and therefore Europe, be the peace loving, rule of law, productive nation it is today if we had left elements of the Nazi regime in place after WWII?
Only by the WWII type of destruction can fanaticism be defeated, and that is what it will take to defeat ISIS, but only after it has grown large enough to warrant total and complete destruction without regard to collateral damage or choice of weapons to do so.
Heavy bombers, wing tip to wing tip. And the bomb doors don't close until ISIS says to close them.
Regrettable, but there is no other way to deal with fanaticism.
Fanaticism cannot be dealt with rationally, and that is why Douthat's comparison to the USSR is silly. The correct comparison would be to Nazi Germany and that regime's corruption of everything from faith to nationalism.
Would Germany, and therefore Europe, be the peace loving, rule of law, productive nation it is today if we had left elements of the Nazi regime in place after WWII?
Only by the WWII type of destruction can fanaticism be defeated, and that is what it will take to defeat ISIS, but only after it has grown large enough to warrant total and complete destruction without regard to collateral damage or choice of weapons to do so.
Heavy bombers, wing tip to wing tip. And the bomb doors don't close until ISIS says to close them.
Regrettable, but there is no other way to deal with fanaticism.
3
ISIS is just piracy without boats. once they've sold off all the art artifacts and oil, and run out of hostages to trade or decapitate, they will devolve into yet another middle eastern failed state.
3
And who would have thought that the barbarous regime of North Korea , and it's new murderous "baby" dictator Kim Jong- un would still be with us. North Korea is "still crazy after all these years" and no religious conflict was even necessary.
5
As history has demonstrated, caliphates do not work over time.
Their totalitarian focus on central authority is based on a simple concept: "It's good to be the Sultan (or Caliph, as the case may be)."
But not much good for anyone else.
Fighting ISIS militarily is a one-dimensional method. The "war" should be fought on the ideological front. Instead of using terms like "evil", perhaps the better adjective to attach to ISIS would be "dumb".
The word "terrorist" confers a status on ISIS followers that they do not deserve. The words "dummies" and "losers" would be less glamorous and more accurate. The ISIS recruiting efforts are based on surrounding their circumstances with an aura of being winners - far from it. It's time to push back on this front.
Their totalitarian focus on central authority is based on a simple concept: "It's good to be the Sultan (or Caliph, as the case may be)."
But not much good for anyone else.
Fighting ISIS militarily is a one-dimensional method. The "war" should be fought on the ideological front. Instead of using terms like "evil", perhaps the better adjective to attach to ISIS would be "dumb".
The word "terrorist" confers a status on ISIS followers that they do not deserve. The words "dummies" and "losers" would be less glamorous and more accurate. The ISIS recruiting efforts are based on surrounding their circumstances with an aura of being winners - far from it. It's time to push back on this front.
1
Before we get too carried away, Ross, please tell us which international bank is going to open a branch in ISIS territory. And which airlines will fly there? This ain't 1919.
3
Hey, Ross - here's a novel approach: how about if we just leave them alone until and unless they become a direct threat to the US? Seems Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others in the region have a great deal more to be worried about than the US at this point, so how is it we keep expending lives & treasures to solve their problem for them? Haven't we done enough?
10
Between the collapse of the classical Greco-Roman world and the beginning of the European Renaissance a variety of Islamic states maintained and advanced the human enterprise while Christian Europe was buried in a primitive ethnic sectarian divided dark age. China was the other point of human light.
The intellectual revival, enlightenment, revolution and reformation led to a rampaging age of racial ethnic sectarian imperial colonial warfare slavery and genocide. Culminating in the duo descent into Hades of World War I and II. Science, industry, technology, faith and finance were used on behalf of the darker demons of our nature. Catholic crusaders, inquisitors and colonizers were matched by "reformed" Protestant imperial war mongers.
During two world wars America had to choose between an alliance with the lesser more distant evil and the imminent more serious one. Bolsheviks over Fascists.
The Islamic States that threaten America are the secular military royal theocratic Sunni Muslim Arab tyrant autocrat states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and UAE. The denial of their people's universal equal certain unalienable rights creates and breeds the likes of al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS/ISIL, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta, 9/11/01 hijackers and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
To end the Arab Islamic state will require allying with relatively moderate democratic Sunni and Shia Muslims. Along with Kurds, Turks and Persians.
The intellectual revival, enlightenment, revolution and reformation led to a rampaging age of racial ethnic sectarian imperial colonial warfare slavery and genocide. Culminating in the duo descent into Hades of World War I and II. Science, industry, technology, faith and finance were used on behalf of the darker demons of our nature. Catholic crusaders, inquisitors and colonizers were matched by "reformed" Protestant imperial war mongers.
During two world wars America had to choose between an alliance with the lesser more distant evil and the imminent more serious one. Bolsheviks over Fascists.
The Islamic States that threaten America are the secular military royal theocratic Sunni Muslim Arab tyrant autocrat states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and UAE. The denial of their people's universal equal certain unalienable rights creates and breeds the likes of al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS/ISIL, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta, 9/11/01 hijackers and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
To end the Arab Islamic state will require allying with relatively moderate democratic Sunni and Shia Muslims. Along with Kurds, Turks and Persians.
4
Our "allies", the Saudis, Qataris, and other monarchies in the Sunni/Wahhabi gulf provided the theological basis, training, and funding that made ISIS possible. If we are going to fight ISIS, we would be foolish to run from battlefield to battlefield as we are doing instead of confronting the Wahhabists and seizing their "cash" and banking reserves around the world. We should also devote our resources to exploiting renewable energy instead of fighting to preserve our addiction to oil which causes global warming, inequality, and war.
Democrats must show some courage and confront Republicans by identifying the fraudulent basis for our war in Iraq, our alliance with Sunni extremists, and our reliance on hydrocarbons. All efforts to war against ISIS must be met with firm resolve by Democrats to insist on raising taxes, preferably from the oil industry and the rich, to fund any war, and to identify our targets among the Sunni/Wahhabi states that promote international terrorism. This would eliminate Iran as a target. America cannot continue it's corrupt and deadly relationship with terror promoting Sunni/Wahhabi states.
Democrats must show some courage and confront Republicans by identifying the fraudulent basis for our war in Iraq, our alliance with Sunni extremists, and our reliance on hydrocarbons. All efforts to war against ISIS must be met with firm resolve by Democrats to insist on raising taxes, preferably from the oil industry and the rich, to fund any war, and to identify our targets among the Sunni/Wahhabi states that promote international terrorism. This would eliminate Iran as a target. America cannot continue it's corrupt and deadly relationship with terror promoting Sunni/Wahhabi states.
12
Typical neo Conservative attempt to link Communist Russia & ISIS together as our existential bogeymans. The Russian Revolution led by the Bolsheviks was set in motion by the existence of a corrupt government, a devastated economy ruined by WWI war efforts & feelings of hopelessness. The optimism of Marxist ideology & support for the people was the catalyst for change. The movement was an organic bottom up upheaval which resembled the French & American Revolutions.
ISIS is a different type of movement. It is somewhat organic although motivated by religious fervor as well as a drive for autonomy against foreign autocratic rule. The people attracted to this type of caliphate are resentful of the pillaging of treasure & oil from overseas powers & are suspicious of Western interference in their homeland. Rather than view their situation through the rosy glasses of American propaganda which claimed that the US was liberated the people, ISIS believes that the US is the enemy which decimated their country. The reason that Iraqi soldiers runaway from battle is that they owe no allegiance to the US & they have no motivating factor to fight against ISIS. The US paid them to train for battle although didn't provide them raison d'etre to fight except to protective US oil interests in the region. The US should allow the region to solve its own territorial disputes rather than wasting more American in a power struggle over economic interests of oil companies & multinational companies.
ISIS is a different type of movement. It is somewhat organic although motivated by religious fervor as well as a drive for autonomy against foreign autocratic rule. The people attracted to this type of caliphate are resentful of the pillaging of treasure & oil from overseas powers & are suspicious of Western interference in their homeland. Rather than view their situation through the rosy glasses of American propaganda which claimed that the US was liberated the people, ISIS believes that the US is the enemy which decimated their country. The reason that Iraqi soldiers runaway from battle is that they owe no allegiance to the US & they have no motivating factor to fight against ISIS. The US paid them to train for battle although didn't provide them raison d'etre to fight except to protective US oil interests in the region. The US should allow the region to solve its own territorial disputes rather than wasting more American in a power struggle over economic interests of oil companies & multinational companies.
16
I just want to remind everyone that WWII had lots of tactical losses for the Allies before defeating the Axis Forces. Even in our Civil War there were many dark days for the Blues before the Grays finally surrendered. Frankly, no one knows the future for ISIS.
5
Absolutely! You hit the nail on the head with this op-ed. I can see you have totally broken ranks with your G.O.P. bretren who are crying out for blood. What they fail or rather refuse to see the obvious is that it will be American blood. Is'nt it ironic that the countries funding these vicious murderers are the ones we are defending. We brought done autocrats ( no angels by any stretch ) who ruled with iron fists. But there was secularism, stability with their people going about their lives in relative peace. Yes, they lacked a lot of freedoms but that does even begin to compare with the loss of lives, displacement and total upheaval. There was no Al Qaeda, no ISIS. And now the Caliphate is expanding. If the people in the region were given a choice ( hypothetically )whom would they rather have - the autocrats or the ISIS? The answer is pretty obvious, don't you think.
For once, Ross, thank you. This is the first time I've ever considered a connection between ISIS and the terror that dominated France after its 1789 revolution. It eventually self-destructed.
It seems entirely possible that the same may happen to ISIS. Let their leaders become so inhumane that their supporters turn against them.
There must be a limit to how many people can be beheaded without some serious backlash.
It seems entirely possible that the same may happen to ISIS. Let their leaders become so inhumane that their supporters turn against them.
There must be a limit to how many people can be beheaded without some serious backlash.
2
Treated as second-class citizens by the Syrian government and as enemies by the post-Saddam Iraqi
government, Sunnis on both sides of the border feel they have a better future together than apart. ISIL
will prevail as long as it protects the interests of the people in their region. To Iraqi leaders, who
would rather maintain control of Shiite area plus Baghdad, and to the Syrian regime, which has problems closer to Damascus, ISIL poses no existential threat. Nor does it threaten the U.S. Any
American president who invades the region again should be impeached.
Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, China is building military bases out of coral atolls 400 miles
from its coastline. Its navy has already warned our forces to stay away from the area despite
the proximity of the locations to Vietnam , the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore. We have much
bigger countries to deal with than ISIL.
government, Sunnis on both sides of the border feel they have a better future together than apart. ISIL
will prevail as long as it protects the interests of the people in their region. To Iraqi leaders, who
would rather maintain control of Shiite area plus Baghdad, and to the Syrian regime, which has problems closer to Damascus, ISIL poses no existential threat. Nor does it threaten the U.S. Any
American president who invades the region again should be impeached.
Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, China is building military bases out of coral atolls 400 miles
from its coastline. Its navy has already warned our forces to stay away from the area despite
the proximity of the locations to Vietnam , the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore. We have much
bigger countries to deal with than ISIL.
8
To quote Laurel and Hardy, "This is another fine mess you've got me into". General Dannett opines that British troops should be sent to Iraq: what for to clear an another American unilateral intervention dressed up as WMD whilst the reality was regime change.
The Americans, Bush, Cheny, the neocons and our very own poodle Tony Blair created thus catastrophe which has left 100,000s dead, displaced untold numbers. The idiocy of disbanding the army, the police, the Ba'arth Party created a vacuum which led to internecine warfare. The installation of the useless Paul Bremmer only made matters worse as did the election of Al Maliki.
It is up to America and America alone to put it boots on the ground and clear up the ISIS butchery, but then that isn't the American modus operandi, they just cut and run. It has been left up to Iran to put soldiers on the ground to aid Iraq. Meanwhile, the Sunni Gulf States Continue to fund the Sunni terrorist.
While the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel grumble about Iranian intervention, there doesn't appear to be much appetite for the instigators of this war to right the wrongs.
Unless action is taken ISIS will spread its tentacles into Afghanistan and Libya and more weakened countries. Is this Mission Accomplished Bush style?
The Americans, Bush, Cheny, the neocons and our very own poodle Tony Blair created thus catastrophe which has left 100,000s dead, displaced untold numbers. The idiocy of disbanding the army, the police, the Ba'arth Party created a vacuum which led to internecine warfare. The installation of the useless Paul Bremmer only made matters worse as did the election of Al Maliki.
It is up to America and America alone to put it boots on the ground and clear up the ISIS butchery, but then that isn't the American modus operandi, they just cut and run. It has been left up to Iran to put soldiers on the ground to aid Iraq. Meanwhile, the Sunni Gulf States Continue to fund the Sunni terrorist.
While the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Israel grumble about Iranian intervention, there doesn't appear to be much appetite for the instigators of this war to right the wrongs.
Unless action is taken ISIS will spread its tentacles into Afghanistan and Libya and more weakened countries. Is this Mission Accomplished Bush style?
2
King Salman of Saudi Arabia has already turned his regime toward repressing the very few modernizing reforms instituted by his predecessor. The Saudis don't want a Caliph from Mesopotamia; the caliphate was born in Arabia. The Saudis are competing with ISIS not only got the title, but also for the legitimacy to dominate Sunni Islam, Arab style.
The Shia are predominantly Persian, not Arab, adding another dimension to the conflict in the region. It might be necessary for the US to decide which of these warring camps will be supported - or just walk away from them both and concentrate on the real threat - CHINA.
The Shia are predominantly Persian, not Arab, adding another dimension to the conflict in the region. It might be necessary for the US to decide which of these warring camps will be supported - or just walk away from them both and concentrate on the real threat - CHINA.
1
ISIS will not invade the Gulf States. It will be suicide for ISIS. The US would be forced into another war that keeps energy flowing to the ROW and the Gulf States reciprocate by insisting that OPEC oil and gas is only traded in US dollars.
"... it’s clear that the United States would be more involved militarily against ISIS if we didn’t have the recent disillusioning experience of a bloody occupation in Iraq. "
It's clear that you ignore, for this argument, that ISIS would not exist at all if the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place. And we could have dealt even more effectively with Al Qaida, and the Taliban, as well.
It is also true that had we not abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated, and helped it to recover a more Afghan culture and government, Al Qaida and the Taliban might not have had much of a chance either.
Circumstances alter cases.
It's clear that you ignore, for this argument, that ISIS would not exist at all if the United States had not invaded Iraq in the first place. And we could have dealt even more effectively with Al Qaida, and the Taliban, as well.
It is also true that had we not abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated, and helped it to recover a more Afghan culture and government, Al Qaida and the Taliban might not have had much of a chance either.
Circumstances alter cases.
4
To defeat ISIL, the U.S. will need internment camps in the U.S. For first and second generation Islamic US immigrants, as illustrated by recent recruitment to ISIL of young men living in Minneapolis.
ISIS stands up for the Sunnis in Syria and Iraq in the same way that the IRA stood up for the Catholics in Northern Ireland.
London made changes in Northern Ireland, giving Catholics representation in the Government of that province. Baghdad and Damascus will have to do the same. That's a process that can take many lifetimes, as we are reminded from time to time of the fragility of the peace in Northern Ireland. Given this, expect ISIS and/or its successors to be around for some time.
London made changes in Northern Ireland, giving Catholics representation in the Government of that province. Baghdad and Damascus will have to do the same. That's a process that can take many lifetimes, as we are reminded from time to time of the fragility of the peace in Northern Ireland. Given this, expect ISIS and/or its successors to be around for some time.
For a nation state to form and sustain, three essential ingredients are needed - a common binding language and religion, a common enemy and institutions and ideology to use the first two forces to make the citizens sacrifice. ISIS fulfills all three of them. This means that ISIS will be here in foreseeable future. The only question mark - how ISIS will transform its techniques from Jihaf to governance.
Jihad is like revolution - you can not continue it indefinitely. At one point focus will be goverance - like what happened in the Iran after revolution. So far ISIS has not shown signs of that shift. It has not made it attractive to policy makers and technocrats. The leadership of ISIS have not changed - in twenty first century world only a khalifa can not govern a state by diktat - you need laws and courts and administrations and regulations.
Jihad is like revolution - you can not continue it indefinitely. At one point focus will be goverance - like what happened in the Iran after revolution. So far ISIS has not shown signs of that shift. It has not made it attractive to policy makers and technocrats. The leadership of ISIS have not changed - in twenty first century world only a khalifa can not govern a state by diktat - you need laws and courts and administrations and regulations.
We all remember the good old days when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron fist. Saddam was a jerk of the highest order but he was able to keep Iran occupied, something we haven't had much luck with. Also, he would have nipped an organization like ISIS in the bud. Thanks for nothing, Dubya.
6
If the US fully commits as you say under a Republican President and 'defeats' ISIS we will never subdue the underlying fanatical causes of ISIS. We will continue to be the nexus of fanatical hatred. Further as in Iraq few will follow our leadership into the morass. Whose children will fight this endless war generation after generation?
We must continue to take a measured approach or end up in endless Iraqs.
We must continue to take a measured approach or end up in endless Iraqs.
2
ISIS will keep expanding as long as we keep supplying it with arms and equipment.
3
ISIS will continue to weather setbacks and rebound with audacious advancements so long as there is not an all out drive to total victory not only against ISIS but to establish a stable state based on liberty, home rule and prosperity for the people.
Taking down ISIS will be difficult enough but until it is replaced by a state that receives the popular support of the people inhabiting this war torn and devastated geography nothing much will change.
Taking down ISIS could be done in a year. Spawning a legitimate governing society will require decades just as it did in post WWII Europe and Japan.
Taking down ISIS will be difficult enough but until it is replaced by a state that receives the popular support of the people inhabiting this war torn and devastated geography nothing much will change.
Taking down ISIS could be done in a year. Spawning a legitimate governing society will require decades just as it did in post WWII Europe and Japan.
ISIS only knows war. They don't know schools, paved streets, productive government, family community, parks. Once they have their land, then what? King ISIS doles out bread and builds new temples of worship? ISIS has no 2nd gear, always in 5th they'll burn out when it comes time to actually write a constitution. Then factions within ISIS will form, ISIS civil war, disintegration. ISIS will eventually eat itself. The cheapest and most productive foreign policy available for America: stand back and watch.
5
There is another problem ISIS faces Shiias, whom they try to murder, backed by Iran. ISIS is able to act on in a few chaotic regions. What happens when the Iranians and the Kurds align to oppose them?
Good stuff, but it still lacks equilibrium.
“The revolutionaries rule through terror and the promise of utopia, and inspire copycats around the world.”
This ignores that many ISIS foreign fighters are well educated, and in many cases abandoned a successful career. It also ignores their readyness for martyrdom means idealism, something you would not expect from “copycats”. Also, many of these foreign fighters expressed, in writing and interviews, their desillusionment with the immorality of the Western world, so these people sought in ISIS a possible way to a better world.
So it is not exactly true that “the Islamic State’s worldview lacks the Western cheering section and sense of historical momentum that Marxist-Leninism once enjoyed”. ISIS’s “Western cheering section” only aren’t cheering, but doing much more: risking their lives, and because it is unbelievable that there are so many of them, more unbelievable things might happen, such as alliances with other nations, also opposed to the Western way of life: North-Korea, and who knows even China and Russia.
“The revolutionaries rule through terror and the promise of utopia, and inspire copycats around the world.”
This ignores that many ISIS foreign fighters are well educated, and in many cases abandoned a successful career. It also ignores their readyness for martyrdom means idealism, something you would not expect from “copycats”. Also, many of these foreign fighters expressed, in writing and interviews, their desillusionment with the immorality of the Western world, so these people sought in ISIS a possible way to a better world.
So it is not exactly true that “the Islamic State’s worldview lacks the Western cheering section and sense of historical momentum that Marxist-Leninism once enjoyed”. ISIS’s “Western cheering section” only aren’t cheering, but doing much more: risking their lives, and because it is unbelievable that there are so many of them, more unbelievable things might happen, such as alliances with other nations, also opposed to the Western way of life: North-Korea, and who knows even China and Russia.
1
If we consider ISIS as a media savvy rebellion in a region of governmental dysfunction then logic might prevail in our current inept analysis, especially this one likening ISIS to the Soviet takeover of Czarist Russia. Syria and Iraq are splitting into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish sectarian regions. Don’t fight this civil war with worse then useless military aid to reconquer towns and cities which are then left desolate and without a community from which to regroup. Just let the divisions happen and support only those political unions that govern and protect their people, for example the Kurds of Kurdistan in Iraq.
3
Mr. Douthat:
I don't know why you even introduce the notion of any American President having to be committed to the ultimate destruction of the Islamic State. Might you apprise us of what circumstances you would consider reasonable justification for such an American intevention? Can you tell me the scope of the operation necessary for that President to accomplish said goal? Will the committment of ground forces be necessary? Can you tell me the projected cost of such an intervention?
Might I offer a supposition that you didn't mention? What if the shadow war, that the Islamic States are the face of, became the open confrontation of Sunni and Shia? Where might the Iranians fit into that tinderbox? What would change in our relations with Iran if they became the face of a new order in the entire region, should they prevail?
Mr. Douthat, I believe you are better than this wistful piece of days gone by.
I don't believe the French or Russian revolutions have much in common culturally with the Islamic State.You need to stop trying to pound suare pegs into round holes'
I don't know why you even introduce the notion of any American President having to be committed to the ultimate destruction of the Islamic State. Might you apprise us of what circumstances you would consider reasonable justification for such an American intevention? Can you tell me the scope of the operation necessary for that President to accomplish said goal? Will the committment of ground forces be necessary? Can you tell me the projected cost of such an intervention?
Might I offer a supposition that you didn't mention? What if the shadow war, that the Islamic States are the face of, became the open confrontation of Sunni and Shia? Where might the Iranians fit into that tinderbox? What would change in our relations with Iran if they became the face of a new order in the entire region, should they prevail?
Mr. Douthat, I believe you are better than this wistful piece of days gone by.
I don't believe the French or Russian revolutions have much in common culturally with the Islamic State.You need to stop trying to pound suare pegs into round holes'
ISIS is winning in Iraq and Syria, yet they have no air force while their opponents benefit from the US bombing missions. They are ruthless yet a lot of Sunnies support them while almost none will oppose them.
The same argument can be made for Afghanistan. Why is that?
It's complicated, but part of the answer is that they have a cause and have claimed the role liberators and in a warped sense, freedom fighters, while their opponents, the regimes we support, are viewed as corrupt profiteering puppies of the Great Satan. Which is true.
Looks a lot like Viet Nam doesn't it?
The same argument can be made for Afghanistan. Why is that?
It's complicated, but part of the answer is that they have a cause and have claimed the role liberators and in a warped sense, freedom fighters, while their opponents, the regimes we support, are viewed as corrupt profiteering puppies of the Great Satan. Which is true.
Looks a lot like Viet Nam doesn't it?
7
I suggest everyone read Graeme Wood's excellent article mentioned in this op ed. Its asbolutely shocking what these people believe.
1
Not quite sure what your point is. This mentality, in the Islamic world, has been going on since the death of Mohammed. You completely miss the point: Militant Jihad has no logical western explanation certainly not a solution for it.
3
I'm for letting the Muslims work it out among themselves. Sure there will be horrible excesses amongst the factions, and many tears to shed for the suffering. But it's their world, their prejudice, their hatred. It's like that second marriage, when you thought, in your infatuation, that one of you could change.
And what did you really have in common anyway?
And what did you really have in common anyway?
4
Good article. Seems like a bit of a stretch to make any realistic comparisons of ISIS to Russia's history. Who knows what Russia would be like, had Hitler not turned on them, putting them through what they endured. Putin seems to be recasting A Russia of old.. Russia may continue to follow Putin as Germans followed the Nazis. It also seems quite possible after WW 1, and the middle east being carved up by the Brits and the French, then our meddling post WW 2, a war of that civilization follows history quite realistically. I am not surprised the region will be settled by violence not diplomacy. I too wonder what Hillary's position will be, based on what advice from whom, if we should eliminate ISIS as a force . The real issue would still be, you can kill their foot soldiers, but the ideology seems to have a major following. Saudi and Iran face major challenges how to deal with a middle east war. Israel is no longer our excuse for meddling. They seem quite capable of defending themselves.
1
Does Mr. Douthat truly consider ISIS to be an existential threat to the sovereignty of the United States? Can anyone make that claim with a straight face? I have little doubt that there are terrorists who might try to attack us in some way, but will our nation fall? I have no problem with us hardening our defenses and borders. But any effort to enter into another war in the Middle East will only hurt us in terms of blood, treasure and reputation. More people still want to migrate to the US than join up with ISIS. That's the war we need to win.
1
We hav bn here before in History, the Mahdi onuerd all of Ept and Sudan beheading all non-believers - and "nothing could stop them, Untill Queen Victoria sent Lord Kitchener and 400.000 troupes to Ondurman and eradicated them. Peace rigned for 60 years, Do we have the stomac ?
And if the revolutionaries believe that time is on their side, whether from the force of historical dialectic or the will of Allah, and that their future triumph is inevitable, it will act against the their apocalyptic tendencies. They're willing to die for their cause, but if it turns out that they don't have to, so much the better.
I'm sure it's really no big deal or the titans of the financial world would shut them down in a minute.
They operate on the foundation of big money. Big money is not paper money.
Has everyone overlooked the fact that they are selling oil?
They operate on the foundation of big money. Big money is not paper money.
Has everyone overlooked the fact that they are selling oil?
1
ISIS is a religiously fueled ideologue.
the Soviet Union was fundamentally an economic ideologue fueled by nationalistic narcissisms.
these are two completely different beasts.
ISIS has stated that it intends to wipe out its sworn religious enemies,
namely Shia Muslims and other heretical versions,
or die in the process -- with no exceptions.
at the present time it has very limited empire-building aspirations.
although it is inconveniently located geographically very near the crossroads of carbon-based energy sources...thus messing-up the actual empire-builders from the West and the East.
ISIS respects no artificial EuroCentric borders.
all of which is further exasperated by its use of modern, US supplied, abandoned military equipment, with strong flavors of middle ages violence and terror.
taking no prisoners and sworn to not negotiate under any circumstances.
bad actors all the way around for non believers.
non-associated peoples need to recall that this region has been at varying levels of violence against each other for nearly 4,000 years.
as such, it is highly unlikely that the current generation will discover a unique method to completely eliminate its existence -- dampening, perhaps, is possible, but only in the short run.
to "wish" for a different reality is a waste of our limited resources.
boots on the ground anyone?
100+ year occupation?
how many sacrificial innocents will be condoned?
a fine mess indeed: all for the love of a God.
mercy be for everyone.
If it's crazy -- insane, really -- to think we can get money out of politics, then we need to become insane. It's that simple.
It would be so simple for any of the politicians and pundits on the right to just come out and say that the situation in the Middle East requires the U.S. to put enough boots on the ground to wipe out ISIS. Yet, all we hear are criticisms of whatever moves Obama has taken. So far in this election cycle, I've only heard one Republican come out clearly with a statement that we ought to send our troops back into Iraq and wipe out ISIS. That was from George Pataki, and it shows how radical one must be to get any traction in the blizzard of Republican candidates.
THe so called coalition of several countries have sent no ground troops. It is all just talk. The only chance of ground troops is to have Nepal's Gurkha men. They are fierce fighters and they can easily crush ISIS. UK, India, an Nepal have huge contingents of these brave me. Nepal will gladly spare them. UK nust be forced to provide them. Nobody seems to give a thought to this.
According to Ash Carter, speaking on CNN's State of the Union, regarding the fall of Ramadi: "What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered," Carter said of the Iraqi forces. "In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and defend themselves."
We have wasted over a decade, thousands of lives and Trillions of dollars trying to change something that the people of the region don't care about. Let the people of the Middle East have their war, they have been lusting after it for 2,000 years. It is time to get out, to use our time, talent & treasure to improve our own lives.
We have wasted over a decade, thousands of lives and Trillions of dollars trying to change something that the people of the region don't care about. Let the people of the Middle East have their war, they have been lusting after it for 2,000 years. It is time to get out, to use our time, talent & treasure to improve our own lives.
3
The potential longevity of ISIS maybe comparable to that of the Bolshevik Revolution. Another apt comparison could be the rise of Nazism. However, the solutions to end both threats were radically different. The anti-ISIS coalition has similar solutions at its disposal. Obviously, it's critical to choose the right one to crush ISIS.
It's said that the end of the Cold War and the Bolshevik Revolution came about "without a shot being fired." Nazism, by contrast, was defeated by force. We could hope time would be on our side and that a Boris Yeltsin/Mikhail Gorbachev would rise in the Muslim world to usher in a counter-revolution. Or the coalition could opt for the Dresden option. But it's at this juncture where similarities of origins and endings, end.
Outside the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, empathy for totalitarianism was minimal. In contrast, ISIS is counting on real or imagined Western slights of Islam and the resulting global tide of anti-Western anger by Muslims, for its very survival. The status quo of containing the threat could continue with the hope that time and emerging progressive ideologies in the Muslim world will lead to ISIS's undoing. The Dresden option may bring a quicker end to the menace but its residual effect - borne from heart-breaking scenes of collateral damage (remember Shock and Awe?) to reinforcement of the belief that the West is out to get Islam - may come back to haunt.
It's said that the end of the Cold War and the Bolshevik Revolution came about "without a shot being fired." Nazism, by contrast, was defeated by force. We could hope time would be on our side and that a Boris Yeltsin/Mikhail Gorbachev would rise in the Muslim world to usher in a counter-revolution. Or the coalition could opt for the Dresden option. But it's at this juncture where similarities of origins and endings, end.
Outside the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, empathy for totalitarianism was minimal. In contrast, ISIS is counting on real or imagined Western slights of Islam and the resulting global tide of anti-Western anger by Muslims, for its very survival. The status quo of containing the threat could continue with the hope that time and emerging progressive ideologies in the Muslim world will lead to ISIS's undoing. The Dresden option may bring a quicker end to the menace but its residual effect - borne from heart-breaking scenes of collateral damage (remember Shock and Awe?) to reinforcement of the belief that the West is out to get Islam - may come back to haunt.
Let us all hope that Ross is wrong and his wish does not come true that "the next American president commits fully to its (Islamist State) destruction". No Ross the Islamist state will persevere or collapse from its own weight as a result of internal forces, economics and social movements within its own borders just as was the case in the fall of Soviet Communist Russia.
We need to stay out of this fight which has been going on for decades if not centuries in the Middle East and has yet failed to extinguish itself. I for one am tired of these backward crazy people. You can't help people that don't want your help and who do not want to help themselves. It is really that simple.
We ave other"fish to fry" here at home with the "cabal" of Republican tea party "fanatical upstarts" that want to rule through "fear" and have their own "messianic vision". They also have defied predictions of their own "imminent collapse" and now are joined by an army of FOX crazies who exploit them for profit as well as the GOP party bosses who exploit them for power. It remains to be seen if it takes the American public as long as seventy years to wake up and root them out.
We need to stay out of this fight which has been going on for decades if not centuries in the Middle East and has yet failed to extinguish itself. I for one am tired of these backward crazy people. You can't help people that don't want your help and who do not want to help themselves. It is really that simple.
We ave other"fish to fry" here at home with the "cabal" of Republican tea party "fanatical upstarts" that want to rule through "fear" and have their own "messianic vision". They also have defied predictions of their own "imminent collapse" and now are joined by an army of FOX crazies who exploit them for profit as well as the GOP party bosses who exploit them for power. It remains to be seen if it takes the American public as long as seventy years to wake up and root them out.
63
Meh. The equivalency is false.
The soviets, for all of their communist and ideological faults, still embraced modernity: the scientific empirical worldview and all that follows, including the weapons of modern warfare.
ISIS, like all of militant Islam, is ultimately a culture that rejects modernity. They will never be able to build and sustain the complex modern economies necessary for them to create their own modern weapons. They have them only because outsiders supply them. The only way they can stand on their own is by embracing modernity, in which case they're not really ISIS anymore.
The soviets, for all of their communist and ideological faults, still embraced modernity: the scientific empirical worldview and all that follows, including the weapons of modern warfare.
ISIS, like all of militant Islam, is ultimately a culture that rejects modernity. They will never be able to build and sustain the complex modern economies necessary for them to create their own modern weapons. They have them only because outsiders supply them. The only way they can stand on their own is by embracing modernity, in which case they're not really ISIS anymore.
27
The US could drive ISIL out of Iraq in six months. Our special forces our itching to go in. Iraq is the heart of the Middle East. We need to re-secure the ground that was paid for in American blood and then relinquished due to Obama's neglect and fecklessness. Our honor as a nation requires it. Our fighters are the world's best, bar none. Let them excel again.
Obama is looking more and more like an incompetent ditherer. The people of Iraq and Syria are suffering mightily. And although Syria is not our venue, Iraq is and it behooves us to re-establish its borders and defend its and our commitment to democracy. Iraq, although Stalinist under Hussein, is one of the most advanced countries in the region. If democracy is ever to take root in the Islamic world in any meaningful way, its best chance is currently in Iraq. If Obama wants to bequeath some kind of a positive legacy, something that appears unlikely based on his performance so far, he would order the military to drive SIL out of Iraq and then leave a residual force that can repel any incursion, terrorist or otherwise, in the future. For nearly half a century we had 200,000 troops in both Germany and Japan after World War II. There is no reason a residual defensive force cannot guarantee Iraq's sovereignty.
Obama is looking more and more like an incompetent ditherer. The people of Iraq and Syria are suffering mightily. And although Syria is not our venue, Iraq is and it behooves us to re-establish its borders and defend its and our commitment to democracy. Iraq, although Stalinist under Hussein, is one of the most advanced countries in the region. If democracy is ever to take root in the Islamic world in any meaningful way, its best chance is currently in Iraq. If Obama wants to bequeath some kind of a positive legacy, something that appears unlikely based on his performance so far, he would order the military to drive SIL out of Iraq and then leave a residual force that can repel any incursion, terrorist or otherwise, in the future. For nearly half a century we had 200,000 troops in both Germany and Japan after World War II. There is no reason a residual defensive force cannot guarantee Iraq's sovereignty.
10
This is an example of extreme naivety. It does not matter how many American troops are sent to Iraq and Syria. All that would be accomplished is a large number of casualties for years without end in sight, and reversion to chaos as soon as the troops leave. The US cannot impose democracy on a culture it does not understand. It has not been able to do so for a dozen years in either Iraq or Afghanistan and if anything has been learned from these misadventures is that military might is a blunt instrument with unpredictable consequences. It can protect but it cannot transform, only the people who have lived in the Middle East for generations can do that. Their culture must change but how and when will not be determined by US military.
42
Aayan Hirsi Ali's new book Heretic explains that the the insistence on political correctness in this country is hamstringing our policies, and not allowing us to successfully counter the radical ideologies.
3
Let's wait and see what the Republican presidential candidate proposes and then do that.
In considering the chances of the survival of the IS Douthat sees its future as nothing more than it is today, the territory they currently hold in Iraq and Syria. This completely misses the idea behind the IS.
According to their stated plans the current state is not by any means the end goal, they are just getting started. The idea is that more and more Muslims will adapt the ideals and become part of the IS, which is not about a certain territory in Iraq, but about accepting a leader and heeding his call.
And already at this early stage there are already areas in the Arab world that are either completely under the rule of the IS or where they have very strong forces that are making it very difficult for the local army not only to govern, but even to exist without suffering serious attacks.
The Arab countries that all lost their old governments have all developed into two camps in regard to whether they will have secular or Islamist, and this is an issue that many Islamists are ready to use violence to get their way.
There is the potential for the IS, having spread widely already to build followings in many of these countries. If there is one thing the IS excels at it is fighting in the most unrelenting way and they are masters in strategy.
So to view the IS as being about nothing more than their current territory completely misses the whole concept of what they are, which is an ideology that is ripe for taking root across the Arab world.
According to their stated plans the current state is not by any means the end goal, they are just getting started. The idea is that more and more Muslims will adapt the ideals and become part of the IS, which is not about a certain territory in Iraq, but about accepting a leader and heeding his call.
And already at this early stage there are already areas in the Arab world that are either completely under the rule of the IS or where they have very strong forces that are making it very difficult for the local army not only to govern, but even to exist without suffering serious attacks.
The Arab countries that all lost their old governments have all developed into two camps in regard to whether they will have secular or Islamist, and this is an issue that many Islamists are ready to use violence to get their way.
There is the potential for the IS, having spread widely already to build followings in many of these countries. If there is one thing the IS excels at it is fighting in the most unrelenting way and they are masters in strategy.
So to view the IS as being about nothing more than their current territory completely misses the whole concept of what they are, which is an ideology that is ripe for taking root across the Arab world.
2
This had to happen in Middle East. In our internet age it was not possible for dictators to keep various groups, who hate each together. How or when this will end I don't know. But, it is not our fight. We can only try to contain it as much as possible and trying to keep Iraq, Syria "together" in borders the British established is not going to work.
5
Historians: How does this ISIS threat compare to that which led to Egypt's Mamluk dynasty, the Seljic Turks, or to Sala-din's military successes?
Knowing these facts might tell us whether an army being recruited these days from loners wanting to be feared more than ignored has any lasting power.
I do see the extreme cruelties of burning people alive, group beheadings, and the systematic rapes of women and girls - as well as the muders of any gays they find - as more of a recruiting tool than any intentional challenge to the West.
Knowing these facts might tell us whether an army being recruited these days from loners wanting to be feared more than ignored has any lasting power.
I do see the extreme cruelties of burning people alive, group beheadings, and the systematic rapes of women and girls - as well as the muders of any gays they find - as more of a recruiting tool than any intentional challenge to the West.
5
The only way to destroy ISIS is for ALL countries that believe in the sanctity of life unite to destroy it. The US can't do it alone, even though we are mostly responsible for this catastrophe. I say mostly because colonialism had something to do with it, a movement started by those very countries which now believe in the sanctity of life. Ross, we're not the cavalry anymore, even though you want to blow the horn.
3
"It's still likely that no strategy will preserve the caliphate", and other similar statements throughout the piece, misses the wood for the trees.
At first we had the Taleban, which morphed into Al Qaeda, now we have ISIS. Doesn't the author get the point? The Middle East mess is entirely the result of at least 6 decades of misguided Anglo-Saxon policies that created a cauldron of discontent and legitimate grievances throughout the region. As the 'body' weakened the 'germs' took over. ISIS is but one effect of those grievances, and whenever ISIS disappears it will be replaced by other extremist, terrorist organizations.
The Middle East is on life support, and it needs all the support the World can offer, not further exploitation. The West must wean itself off Saudi Arabia, the one nation most responsible for the rise of Islamic extremism, and Israel must be 'persuaded' that its days of oppression will no longer be supported blindly by the U.S..
There is no quick or easy solution for combating Islamic terrorism. It will be a lengthy process, but two good starting points would be the U.S. Congress and Senate.
At first we had the Taleban, which morphed into Al Qaeda, now we have ISIS. Doesn't the author get the point? The Middle East mess is entirely the result of at least 6 decades of misguided Anglo-Saxon policies that created a cauldron of discontent and legitimate grievances throughout the region. As the 'body' weakened the 'germs' took over. ISIS is but one effect of those grievances, and whenever ISIS disappears it will be replaced by other extremist, terrorist organizations.
The Middle East is on life support, and it needs all the support the World can offer, not further exploitation. The West must wean itself off Saudi Arabia, the one nation most responsible for the rise of Islamic extremism, and Israel must be 'persuaded' that its days of oppression will no longer be supported blindly by the U.S..
There is no quick or easy solution for combating Islamic terrorism. It will be a lengthy process, but two good starting points would be the U.S. Congress and Senate.
5
I have been saying this for a long time: The sneak attack that began this on September 11th bears a very strong resemblance to another sneak attack that drove us into war: December 7th, 1941.
Lest we forget that war which began with a sneak attack ended with a nuclear bombing. This one will too, I'm afraid.
Lest we forget that war which began with a sneak attack ended with a nuclear bombing. This one will too, I'm afraid.
In considering the chances of the survival of the IS Douthat sees its future as nothing more than it is today, the territory they currently hold in Iraq and Syria. This completely misses the idea behind the IS.
According to their stated plans the current state is not by any means the end goal, they are just getting started. The idea is that more and more Muslims will adapt the ideals and become part of the IS, which is not about a certain territory in Iraq, but about accepting a leader and heeding his call.
And already at this early stage there are already areas in the Arab world that are either completely under the rule of the IS or where they have very strong forces that are making it very difficult for the local army not only to govern, but even to exist without suffering serious attacks.
The Arab countries that all lost their old governments have all developed into two camps in regard to whether they will have secular or Islamist, and this is an issue that many Islamists are ready to use violence to get their way.
There is the potential for the IS, having spread widely already to build followings in many of these countries. If there is one thing the IS excels at it is fighting in the most unrelenting way and they are masters in strategy.
So to view the IS as being about nothing more than their current territory completely misses the whole concept of what they are, which is an ideology that is ripe for taking root across the Arab world.
According to their stated plans the current state is not by any means the end goal, they are just getting started. The idea is that more and more Muslims will adapt the ideals and become part of the IS, which is not about a certain territory in Iraq, but about accepting a leader and heeding his call.
And already at this early stage there are already areas in the Arab world that are either completely under the rule of the IS or where they have very strong forces that are making it very difficult for the local army not only to govern, but even to exist without suffering serious attacks.
The Arab countries that all lost their old governments have all developed into two camps in regard to whether they will have secular or Islamist, and this is an issue that many Islamists are ready to use violence to get their way.
There is the potential for the IS, having spread widely already to build followings in many of these countries. If there is one thing the IS excels at it is fighting in the most unrelenting way and they are masters in strategy.
So to view the IS as being about nothing more than their current territory completely misses the whole concept of what they are, which is an ideology that is ripe for taking root across the Arab world.
4
"...no strategy will preserve the caliphate, especially if the next American president commits fully to its destruction."
If the next American president campaigns on that commitment, he or she won't be the next American president. Obama was elected and then re-elected on the promise of getting US troops out of the Middle East. Many voters, myself included, believe that ISIS is a problem for the regional nations to resolve. US troops on the ground there can only make things very much worse.
If the next American president campaigns on that commitment, he or she won't be the next American president. Obama was elected and then re-elected on the promise of getting US troops out of the Middle East. Many voters, myself included, believe that ISIS is a problem for the regional nations to resolve. US troops on the ground there can only make things very much worse.
21
Remember the days when Liberals were the ones accused of being ideological? Remember the days when Conservatives portrayed themselves as the adults in the room? Now we have Conservative ideologues falling all over themselves to push their ideals of capitalism, Christianity, American exceptionalism, etc.
We have to fight ISIS because it offends their nostalgic image of America as it was after WWII.
What are our true interests in the Middle East? We need much less of their oil, we should have learned in Iraq that we cannot settle their religious/tribal issues, and the false borders the West created no longer serve us.
We no longer have a true dog in this fight other than Israel, and they seem to be acting like the spoiled child Arafat accused them of being.
Let the Middle East countries settle this on their own. We cannot be an honest broker there. They all hate us.
We have to fight ISIS because it offends their nostalgic image of America as it was after WWII.
What are our true interests in the Middle East? We need much less of their oil, we should have learned in Iraq that we cannot settle their religious/tribal issues, and the false borders the West created no longer serve us.
We no longer have a true dog in this fight other than Israel, and they seem to be acting like the spoiled child Arafat accused them of being.
Let the Middle East countries settle this on their own. We cannot be an honest broker there. They all hate us.
27
It's their oil, our world markets for it. Let them decide their price for it. Let the Israelis, the Iranians,and the Arabs, including ISIL, negotiate the price by themselves, after the usual exhaustive military stalemates, or bloodbaths. Let the United Nations sponsor the venue, the shape and place settings of the table where the negotiators sit. The price of gasoline should be very cheap by then, compared to the price of weapons we sell them. Or, is that not already the case?
6
ISIS is a Sunni agent funded by the Saudis in the thousand year old sectarian war with the Shia centered in Iran. Why are we involved at all? If political Islam exhausts itself fighting internal wars, the rest of the world can breathe easier. We should know by now that we can't impose a durable peace or enlightenment there. If the Islamic Middle East is ever to be free and at peace, the people of the region will have to earn it themselves. Hopefully it won't take another thousand years.
26
When we still had forces on the ground in Iraq and the timeline set by Bush for withdrawing them came closer, VP Biden once suggested that a solution for a more stable Iraq would be to establish a federation of three states, one Shia, one Sunni and one Kurdish, all being represented in a shared central government.
That suggestion was mercilessly ridiculed by our gentle Republicans. But then, they never have any alternative or better plans, only criticism once they poured the baby out with the bath water.
That suggestion was mercilessly ridiculed by our gentle Republicans. But then, they never have any alternative or better plans, only criticism once they poured the baby out with the bath water.
101
Lacking an existential threat to our nation, the neo-cons have to continually invent one to justify their goal of American military hegemony. Defense budgets must be justified. The aggressive wing of the foreign policy establishment must be funded. A foreign enemy must be the focus of national attention, lest the economic goals of the neo-cons not be achieved.
Al Qaeda was not an existential threat. It struck a horrific blow against us, due to laxity in protecting the cockpits on airliners. The Taliban didn't really care about us. They were concerned with preserving their medieval lifestyle in Afghanistan and following the orders of their Pakistani sponsors. ISIS is not a threat to us. Iran also is not an existential threat to America.
We are the most powerful nation on earth. We get into trouble by trying to stretch our sphere of control too far and attempting to force other nations to live as we desire. We want harmony within the sanctity of the old Sykes-Picot boundaries, whose sole purpose was to aid French and British imperialism.
Biden was right, Iraq should have been divided into three ethnic/religious parts. Instead, we imposed a constitution and selected the leadership. We followed Paul Bremer's folly of trying to replicate the Lebanese model in Iraq, long after Lebanon itself had failed.
We want to think of the names on the colonial map: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrein. The warring Sunnis and Shiites tell us that is not where their loyalties lie.
Al Qaeda was not an existential threat. It struck a horrific blow against us, due to laxity in protecting the cockpits on airliners. The Taliban didn't really care about us. They were concerned with preserving their medieval lifestyle in Afghanistan and following the orders of their Pakistani sponsors. ISIS is not a threat to us. Iran also is not an existential threat to America.
We are the most powerful nation on earth. We get into trouble by trying to stretch our sphere of control too far and attempting to force other nations to live as we desire. We want harmony within the sanctity of the old Sykes-Picot boundaries, whose sole purpose was to aid French and British imperialism.
Biden was right, Iraq should have been divided into three ethnic/religious parts. Instead, we imposed a constitution and selected the leadership. We followed Paul Bremer's folly of trying to replicate the Lebanese model in Iraq, long after Lebanon itself had failed.
We want to think of the names on the colonial map: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrein. The warring Sunnis and Shiites tell us that is not where their loyalties lie.
9
It is ridiculous to compare Bolshevism with ISIS. One was a movement with a godless ideology and the other is essentially a drive for total religious purity. The only similarity is perhaps the grab for power at a time of internal turmoil when a functioning state ceases to exist. But Russia was a huge country with the apparatus of governance still intact. The Bolsheviks had the foresight, and the ruthlessness, to impose their will upon the country. Rapid industrialization and a terror state cemented their power.
In case of ISIS, the Caliphate is just a dream and a nightmare for those living within its fluid geographical boundaries. Blackmarket oil is not going to sustain the movement for long. Arms supplies and even the money from the Sunni countries are eventually going to dry up. The United Stares can sustain the bombing campaign for a long period of time. A more apt comparison is probably with the Nazis, with even a final battle like the one in Berlin, though on a much smaller scale. It is just a matter of time before the banners of ISIS, instead of flying high in the desert wind, will lie torn and discarded in the sand.
In case of ISIS, the Caliphate is just a dream and a nightmare for those living within its fluid geographical boundaries. Blackmarket oil is not going to sustain the movement for long. Arms supplies and even the money from the Sunni countries are eventually going to dry up. The United Stares can sustain the bombing campaign for a long period of time. A more apt comparison is probably with the Nazis, with even a final battle like the one in Berlin, though on a much smaller scale. It is just a matter of time before the banners of ISIS, instead of flying high in the desert wind, will lie torn and discarded in the sand.
6
Why does it seem implausible to the author that a majority of the working class (Bolsheviks) in a state breaking out from under a heavy Czarist boot on their necks, would rule for some decades? It makes perfect sense. Maybe he's confusing a sense of shock and surprise with, "sense." What going on in Ireland must have Douthat spinning.
7
@CK
My friend, Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with Ross's piece.
But, if anything, it probably has the Muslim world spinning and pointing to one more way in which the West threatens their worldview.
Dick Cheney is not responsible for all of America's foreign challenges. We are doing our part, as citizens, to poke the Islamic bear.
When you call someone The Great Satan, it means the cultures are at war.
My friend, Ireland has absolutely nothing to do with Ross's piece.
But, if anything, it probably has the Muslim world spinning and pointing to one more way in which the West threatens their worldview.
Dick Cheney is not responsible for all of America's foreign challenges. We are doing our part, as citizens, to poke the Islamic bear.
When you call someone The Great Satan, it means the cultures are at war.
When America was at its peak, after the Shah fell, Iran thumbed it nose at the USA. The rest of the world, especially Pakistan learned what is feasible against one superpower, and was emboldened to act against the other superpower in Afghanistan in the 80s, without repercussions. Other countries have also learned the limits of the world's remaining superpower. The Sunnis (Saudi Arabia) learned what the Shias can do and said wow! we didn't know anyone could do that! to the USA. Now they are trying to show Sunnis are no less compared to Shias. That is why Saudi Arabia feels bolder against their main arms donor but actually their greatest enemy, USA.
1
We have been continually distanced from any recognition of the actual underlying problem that has engulfed the Middle East. We have seen the war in Syria as a distinct new war, a war we can blame mainly on Pres. al -Assad. But this caused us to accept a situation there that is so far without any solution. At the same time the problems there... generated actually by the continuing lack of any peace... seem to lack any other possible solution at all... and have continued to multiply.
We can even surmise that the Islamic State would never have gained power except possibly in Iraq, and elsewhere where there have been power vacuums. Thus the problem of the war in Syria can be seen as the worst thing that happened in the whole Middle East. Yet it not only has had to take a back seat, like to resolution of the questions of a Palestinian State, or peace of any kind between Israel and the 'Palestinians', but a back seat to developing problems with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and the possible dangers of that, and then to the trouble in Ukraine.
See then how the main problem there is in the matter of the tug of war between superpowers ... over Syria. Because of the intransigent positions, it's effectively become a stalemate helping no one.
But Syria really means more to Russia than it (wrongfully) came to mean for the U.S.
So the U.S should decide to align itself more with Russia's position on it.
This is also, almost necessary to do, to defeat ISIS there.
We can even surmise that the Islamic State would never have gained power except possibly in Iraq, and elsewhere where there have been power vacuums. Thus the problem of the war in Syria can be seen as the worst thing that happened in the whole Middle East. Yet it not only has had to take a back seat, like to resolution of the questions of a Palestinian State, or peace of any kind between Israel and the 'Palestinians', but a back seat to developing problems with Iran over its nuclear capabilities and the possible dangers of that, and then to the trouble in Ukraine.
See then how the main problem there is in the matter of the tug of war between superpowers ... over Syria. Because of the intransigent positions, it's effectively become a stalemate helping no one.
But Syria really means more to Russia than it (wrongfully) came to mean for the U.S.
So the U.S should decide to align itself more with Russia's position on it.
This is also, almost necessary to do, to defeat ISIS there.
1
During the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements, the PBS Newshour scrolled through the lives that were lost in those faraway lands. It was a touching and very justified tribute to the men and women who were placed in harm's way and paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives for another country.
Most of the readers here would say we were not securing freedom and any involvement was motivated by either a neocon impulse or some desire to product oil supplies.
My recommendation is this: in Syria and Iraq, we should run a nightly scroll of the civilians that are murdered in the ISIS led conflicts. More importantly, if possible, it should indicate the way in which these unaided citizens died. Some will have died due to their sect, others due to the fact that they practiced a different religion from the ISIS fighters, and still others for their gender or sexual orientation.
That would be a powerful reminder of the world without our intervention.
To please the most strident of the readers, you can also include a reference that American Liberals believe that all of those lives, having not intervened, were originally put at risk by American neocons.
And watch the newsreel. And think of the innocent lives lost. And try to ignore them. And try to remain comfortable that it is still all the fault of American neocons who, allegedly, started the conflict.
It is important to treat Americans like grownups. Let our withdrawal from the world begin pointedly.
Most of the readers here would say we were not securing freedom and any involvement was motivated by either a neocon impulse or some desire to product oil supplies.
My recommendation is this: in Syria and Iraq, we should run a nightly scroll of the civilians that are murdered in the ISIS led conflicts. More importantly, if possible, it should indicate the way in which these unaided citizens died. Some will have died due to their sect, others due to the fact that they practiced a different religion from the ISIS fighters, and still others for their gender or sexual orientation.
That would be a powerful reminder of the world without our intervention.
To please the most strident of the readers, you can also include a reference that American Liberals believe that all of those lives, having not intervened, were originally put at risk by American neocons.
And watch the newsreel. And think of the innocent lives lost. And try to ignore them. And try to remain comfortable that it is still all the fault of American neocons who, allegedly, started the conflict.
It is important to treat Americans like grownups. Let our withdrawal from the world begin pointedly.
2
As far as I can tell, ISIS exists so that military contractors can still draw big paychecks. It is not an existential threat to the homeland and if we are engaged to support our allies, which ones are benefiting? I do not understand why we are fighting a war that helps decide what denomination of a faith will hold the power of government.
15
Since the Islamic State can likely only survive and thrive if the Middle East in some form similar to how it exists now perishes (The Islamic State's success being predicated on its subjugation of at least the rest of the Middle East), we have a much easier, much better, more demonstrably useful hypothetical to ask than the questionable analogy: "Could the trajectory of the Islamic State mirror that of the Soviet Union?"
That superior form of the question is: "Can the Middle East survive?" Or even more appropriately, does the Middle East know how to survive, or, does the Middle East have the means or even the will to survive?
I don't claim to have any definitive answer. But it does occur to me that the Islamic State is not necessarily the only or greatest threat to the survival of the Middle East. There is at least one other state in the region which also sees its survival and success as predicated on the subjugation of the rest of the Middle East.
No, it's not Iran.
That superior form of the question is: "Can the Middle East survive?" Or even more appropriately, does the Middle East know how to survive, or, does the Middle East have the means or even the will to survive?
I don't claim to have any definitive answer. But it does occur to me that the Islamic State is not necessarily the only or greatest threat to the survival of the Middle East. There is at least one other state in the region which also sees its survival and success as predicated on the subjugation of the rest of the Middle East.
No, it's not Iran.
Well then, Mr. Douthat is our solution to send in troops and commit to another ten years of stupidity? Comparisons to USSR seem almost stupefying. The economics of the Russian landscape determined the history. Isn't it ironic that income disparity, capitalism and excessive wealth in the hands of a few lit the candle of revolution? Gee, where have I seen that picture? Maybe examining our own country would be more worthwhile. I favor containment meaning allowing the countries in the region fight their own dam wars and not allow the US to do it. Vietnam was a civil war and getting out of there worked, correct? Make sure our country is defended and stay the hell out of a purely religious struggle will be the best course.
3
"...especially if the next President commits fully to its destruction'???
Oh, please. Isis is a direct and immediate threat to the middle east and its Europe neighbors et al. It could become a distant threat to the USA IF we committed fully to its destruction.
But we won't. We have more immediate priorities- aging infrastructure ignored because of our mid-east obsession (for its oil)- and emerging competition from asia, especially China.Time to move on from the mideast- and its terrorists. We have better energy resources closer to home. And the less we engage there, the less they will engage us.
Oh, please. Isis is a direct and immediate threat to the middle east and its Europe neighbors et al. It could become a distant threat to the USA IF we committed fully to its destruction.
But we won't. We have more immediate priorities- aging infrastructure ignored because of our mid-east obsession (for its oil)- and emerging competition from asia, especially China.Time to move on from the mideast- and its terrorists. We have better energy resources closer to home. And the less we engage there, the less they will engage us.
5
Could we please have a moratorium on name-calling and blame-casting?
No?
Okay, I sort of guessed that.
How about this, then?
One positive idea must be fully articulated for each diatribe about how it is someone else's fault or failed policies!
Also unworkable?
Yeah, I figured that too.
Then I guess I'll go with our current and wannabe leaders - rhetoric and money in return for votes. At least it is a system we are used to.
No?
Okay, I sort of guessed that.
How about this, then?
One positive idea must be fully articulated for each diatribe about how it is someone else's fault or failed policies!
Also unworkable?
Yeah, I figured that too.
Then I guess I'll go with our current and wannabe leaders - rhetoric and money in return for votes. At least it is a system we are used to.
2
Ross your first paragraph could be applied perfectly to first century Palestine during the rise of Christianity, with one small exception (the mention of the United States in the last sentence).
2
What is absolutely necessary to sustain and strengthen the ISIS is angry American opposition. We are the catalyst that helps ISIS grow and prosper.
Nothing impels Islamic people in the Middle East to resistance and fury more than the hubristic presence of American meddling done usually with a combination of ineptitude and incompetence.
Sunni and Shia violence is insured as long as the United States is inclined to think that it can take sides and manipulate the contention to it’s advantage.
The sectarian strife that provides the ingredient of passion combined with a dispute over the balance of power in the region is a minefield that we cannot negotiate, we merely intensify the discord and violence.
If we want to do something to lessen the distress in that unhappy part of the world we should stop being the gunrunner and instead transfer those efforts to a major humanitarian effort to aid the refugees of the conflicts.
Nothing impels Islamic people in the Middle East to resistance and fury more than the hubristic presence of American meddling done usually with a combination of ineptitude and incompetence.
Sunni and Shia violence is insured as long as the United States is inclined to think that it can take sides and manipulate the contention to it’s advantage.
The sectarian strife that provides the ingredient of passion combined with a dispute over the balance of power in the region is a minefield that we cannot negotiate, we merely intensify the discord and violence.
If we want to do something to lessen the distress in that unhappy part of the world we should stop being the gunrunner and instead transfer those efforts to a major humanitarian effort to aid the refugees of the conflicts.
7
Mr. Douthat may be correct in his analysis of the similarities between the origins of the Soviet Union and the rise of ISIS. If you look at the histories of many revolutions, you often see that decapitating the government often leads to an autocracy. Whether that autocracy endures for a long time is based on other conditions.
The French Revolution has is own Terror. Extremists violently suppressed the opposition. It ended with a strongman taking power: Napolean Bonaparte.
The Chinese Revolution also had its own brand of terror and ended with the rule of Mao. There were many examples of foreign intervention in the conflict.
These examples are hardly aberrations. Our romantic view of our own revolution can blind us to the broader reality.
President George W. Bush like the theory that democracy can nurture peace. Perhaps his effort to implement that idea in Iraq was the biggest mistake in a pantheon of bad judgment.
The French Revolution has is own Terror. Extremists violently suppressed the opposition. It ended with a strongman taking power: Napolean Bonaparte.
The Chinese Revolution also had its own brand of terror and ended with the rule of Mao. There were many examples of foreign intervention in the conflict.
These examples are hardly aberrations. Our romantic view of our own revolution can blind us to the broader reality.
President George W. Bush like the theory that democracy can nurture peace. Perhaps his effort to implement that idea in Iraq was the biggest mistake in a pantheon of bad judgment.
34
"The fall of an autocrat leads to foreign occupation..." - I thought it was "a foreign invasion led to the fall of an autocrat....". I despair when a leading columnist at a leading newspaper cannot begin with an honest sentence.
72
ISIS is a threat to corporations who have interests in the region. But the USA has its name on the conflict. We are actually considered to be the biggest threat in the region. Maybe ISIS has usurped this by now, but we started it. By "we" I mean G.W.Bush, and his gang, the neocons that used the American public as a shield to do what they wanted. Halliburton, Kellogs Root and Brown, the CIA, the big banks involved, and oil interests made tons of money on this whole adventure.
95
To Carolyn:
Please don't forget how it got continued in various ways under Pres. Obama.
Syria was still safe for possibly more democratic rule, if you really insist on more democracy. Similar reasons were still behind the U.S. foreign policy anywhere, but with special attention to the Middle East. Those reasons somehow led to taking advantage of the uprisings in Homs and other cities in Syria. Then why did Pres. Obama have to make an ultimatum about Pres. al-Assad ? This was almost an exact copy of what G.W. Bush had done with Saddam Hussein (former and last real president of Iraq). Do we want Pres. Assad to have been the last real leader in Syria too, and Syria also nearly completely destroyed too. And Hillary Clinton was Sec'y of State when this happened, and also caused the war against Libya. And we know how Libya has turned out. Please don't be so kind to any of America's recent rogue administrations.
Please don't forget how it got continued in various ways under Pres. Obama.
Syria was still safe for possibly more democratic rule, if you really insist on more democracy. Similar reasons were still behind the U.S. foreign policy anywhere, but with special attention to the Middle East. Those reasons somehow led to taking advantage of the uprisings in Homs and other cities in Syria. Then why did Pres. Obama have to make an ultimatum about Pres. al-Assad ? This was almost an exact copy of what G.W. Bush had done with Saddam Hussein (former and last real president of Iraq). Do we want Pres. Assad to have been the last real leader in Syria too, and Syria also nearly completely destroyed too. And Hillary Clinton was Sec'y of State when this happened, and also caused the war against Libya. And we know how Libya has turned out. Please don't be so kind to any of America's recent rogue administrations.
2
I think Isis is serious, growing and sufficiently dangerous to be worth opposing with enough force either to stop it or eliminate it. My guess is that more could be done but that putting the US on the ground is the wrong tactic. I think what may be needed is a vastly upgraded tech capacity to identify Isis with equipment we may have and to demonstrate more and more a capacity to stop Isis at will. Maybe this is whistling in the wind. But rather than generals at the helm we may need computer gamers and hackers who can penetrate the innermost reaches of this determined organization. We are committed because there is no other choice. But are we doing what it will take to win?
4
I agree that cyberwar is a critical component of any defense/offense today, but your premise is wrong (there is no other choice) so you ask the wrong question (are we doing what it will take to win?). There are alternatives (no action, diplomatic action (like sanctions), covert action (special ops including cyberops)) and the more important question is: should we be involved at all, militarily, in this religious and civil war? The answer is an emphatic no. Obama understands that the future lies in Asia, not the wasteland of the Middle East. Let 'em stew in their own oil and kill each other as we move on to more sustainable fuels and a more peaceful and prosperous future without them.
Most successful revolutions based on extremist ideologies tend to have a lifespan of about less than 80 years. In fact one could pretty much say that regime change of any kind imposed by outside force has a short life span in the modern world.
3
The May 25 issue of the New Yorker's Talk of the town goes a long way in explaining how we got here and why electing Ronald Wilson Reagan may eventually destroy what was the greatest nation on Earth. Carter was correct and failing to wean ourselves off Saudi oil has come with a heavy price.
Where are the White House solar panels and what happened to our incredible head start in developing renewable energy.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/saudi-shakeup
Can the Islamic State Survive?
Only if we fail to get back on the road to democracy. How can we expect to win a war of ideas when we haven't got better ideas? Are our plutocrats better than Riyadh's?
Where are the White House solar panels and what happened to our incredible head start in developing renewable energy.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/saudi-shakeup
Can the Islamic State Survive?
Only if we fail to get back on the road to democracy. How can we expect to win a war of ideas when we haven't got better ideas? Are our plutocrats better than Riyadh's?
32
The fatal pre-emption of the Cheney regime - let's call it what it is - was not attacking Iraq, but pre-empting our own ability to later fully engage a more genuine and graver threat. Those fools exhausted our moral nerve on their own vanity.
14
The west has become decadent. With income inequality, and a coarsening of behaviors it's understandable that these ISIS fanatics are making headway.
The west has become soft, relative and comfortable. It does not wish to be roused from it's somnolence. The puritanical worldview that these fanatics espouse seems quaint and absurd, but one thing they possess is a willingness to die for them.
Sooner or later, the west will evolve probably due to some economic imbalance and a tighter more efficient and less comfortable citizen will be borne. Make no mistake, unless you see the weak undercurrent of western apathy no strength will be forthcoming. As JC said, apparently: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
The west has become soft, relative and comfortable. It does not wish to be roused from it's somnolence. The puritanical worldview that these fanatics espouse seems quaint and absurd, but one thing they possess is a willingness to die for them.
Sooner or later, the west will evolve probably due to some economic imbalance and a tighter more efficient and less comfortable citizen will be borne. Make no mistake, unless you see the weak undercurrent of western apathy no strength will be forthcoming. As JC said, apparently: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
1
The so called Califate will fall of its own nature.
Humankind does not cotton well with their men being beheaded, their wives raped and throats slit, their children sold off as sex slaves and their ancient sacred religious icons desecrated and demolished.
Right always prevails, eventually.
Humankind does not cotton well with their men being beheaded, their wives raped and throats slit, their children sold off as sex slaves and their ancient sacred religious icons desecrated and demolished.
Right always prevails, eventually.
10
Does it occur to anyone else (than me) that Mr. Obama is simply waiting out these "wars" so we can rebuild our military, our treasury and our economy so when these things do metastasize (if they ever do) we will be in a strong position to fight and defeat them?
What is the point in borrowing money from the Chinese and Russians, bleed through our noses paying for oil for domestic use and for use in the war theater, gut our economy with jobs exported to our Chinese lenders and to financial shenanigans with the Fed and their owners on Wall Street (The Fed is a private bank folks, no conspiracy theory there) yada yada yada because a bunch of overrated, overpaid middle-class millionaire columnists and neocons feel that our national ego is threatened?
There is a role for ideology in thinking and analysis, but it should not be dogmatic. Obama is a pragmatic man and he is doing a pragmatic job every step of the way. More power to him. Dogs may bark but the caravan passes on.
What is the point in borrowing money from the Chinese and Russians, bleed through our noses paying for oil for domestic use and for use in the war theater, gut our economy with jobs exported to our Chinese lenders and to financial shenanigans with the Fed and their owners on Wall Street (The Fed is a private bank folks, no conspiracy theory there) yada yada yada because a bunch of overrated, overpaid middle-class millionaire columnists and neocons feel that our national ego is threatened?
There is a role for ideology in thinking and analysis, but it should not be dogmatic. Obama is a pragmatic man and he is doing a pragmatic job every step of the way. More power to him. Dogs may bark but the caravan passes on.
18
I think there's a good chance that the Islamic State will not only be able to survive, but expand, because it has far more support among Sunnis in the Middle East than anyone in the American media is willing to acknowledge.
Not majority support, but you don't need a majority to rule. If 10 percent of the population is sympathizers, and 2 percent are willing to fight and die, that can be plenty. We hear a lot of talk about "moderate Muslims," but what we aren't told -- although there are surveys that make this clear (see the link below) -- is that the social and political views of even "moderate" Muslims are comparable to those of hard-core fundamentalist Christians, while true Islamic fundamentalists are much more extreme than anything that exists in the West. Given that large majorities in many Muslim countries believe that Sharia should be the law of the land, I have no difficulty believing that the minority of Muslims willing to actively support the Islamic State could be large enough to propel it to victory across much of the Middle East.
This doesn't necessarily mean we want to send our soldiers over there again. A better plan might be to just wall them off (with the help of Iran most likely!) and let them all go to hell, until they've burned it out of their system. I'm just saying I think it's possible the Islamic State could win, and we should be prepared for that.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
Not majority support, but you don't need a majority to rule. If 10 percent of the population is sympathizers, and 2 percent are willing to fight and die, that can be plenty. We hear a lot of talk about "moderate Muslims," but what we aren't told -- although there are surveys that make this clear (see the link below) -- is that the social and political views of even "moderate" Muslims are comparable to those of hard-core fundamentalist Christians, while true Islamic fundamentalists are much more extreme than anything that exists in the West. Given that large majorities in many Muslim countries believe that Sharia should be the law of the land, I have no difficulty believing that the minority of Muslims willing to actively support the Islamic State could be large enough to propel it to victory across much of the Middle East.
This doesn't necessarily mean we want to send our soldiers over there again. A better plan might be to just wall them off (with the help of Iran most likely!) and let them all go to hell, until they've burned it out of their system. I'm just saying I think it's possible the Islamic State could win, and we should be prepared for that.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
11
Mr. Douthat's essay is but the latest in a series of articles by conservative writers who want the next American president to "commit fully" to the destruction of ISIS. I read in vain for just one of these conservative pundits to include the following sentence in one of their articles: "and we should raise taxes to achieve that vital strategic goal." The Republican's preferred policy option - cutting programs for poor Americans - simply will not provide enough revenue to support their dreams of more extensive military entanglements. Their refusal to grapple with the economic and human costs of the wars they promote should disqualify them from serious consideration.
60
We should raise taxes on the 47% of Americans who pay ZERO income taxes. These "patriots" enjoy life in America, they should finally ante up their fair share
One thing that Mr. Douthat's article fails to take of is the fact that the Bolsheviks' emergence in Russia was because at the time, the U.S. had isolated itself from events happening around the world until its entry into the Second World War. Do you honestly think that had the U.S. been actively involved, as it did in defeating Germany during the Second World War, the Bolsheviks would have come to power in Russia? ISIS faces formidable enemies around the world, and there is no way that it would, at the end, survive the onslaught that would be mounted by the U.S. and its allies for its defeat. It's just a matter of time.
4
Douthat is right. ISIS has a long future. Even if it doen't, the violence that birthed it has. And the best example is not the Soviet Union, but France. Between 1789 and 1945 France lurched violently back and forth between revolution and reaction. Starting with the reign of terror, it passed through three revolutions, three monarchies, two republics, four constitutions, five coups, and two full blown civil wars. Only after 1945, 150 years later and only with massive American help did it become a stable democracy. France was the largest recipient of Marshall Aid.
Given American or Western inability or unwillingness to render such massive assistance, the violence of ISIS has all the potential of metastasizing into a monstrosity that threatens the whole middle east.
Given American or Western inability or unwillingness to render such massive assistance, the violence of ISIS has all the potential of metastasizing into a monstrosity that threatens the whole middle east.
3
Your history of France is quite faulty. France was not, repeat not, the largest recipient of the Marshall 'aid', which was actually named the Marshall Plan. The UK was. And no, it didn't become a stable democracy only with massive American help after 1945.
1
France before the revolution was the biggest land power in Europe with a population 2.5 times that of England. Its equipment and resources when put to use by the revolution was as up to date as anyone. It had just come off a victory against England in the American revolution. ISIS is incomparably weaker in all categories. In addition its command and control is vulnerable as is its communications and supply. It is more comparable to the Mahdi revolt in Sudan in 1881. By 1885 they had defeated the Egyptian and British armies capturing Khartoum. They imposed modified versions of sharia and Wahhabism. following this expanded further receiving support from beleivers outside their core area. In 1897 the British and Egyptians invaded. which culminated in the battle of Omdurman. The Mahdis loss between 6000 and 10000 dead the British/Egyptians 47. While it may sound cold blooded taking time to develop the best tactics to destroy these groups inexpensively in money and manpower makes sense. Given the number of leaders taken out their security must be thoroughly penetrated and given the number of volunteers reported killed they must be taking high losses. Everyone knows the advanced western countries can easily destroy the current version in fact it is probable that Jordan or Egypt could defeat them and there is no doubt Turkey could. They must be seen as failures before they are destroyed.
The Bolsheviks didn't have the Sunni Royals pumping tens of billions of dollars into building the Red Guard, but ISIS does have the unstinting support of the Kingdom and the Emirates. Our ostensible allies have created a Conventional Military Force to redraw the map of the Middle East in order to contain Iran in the interest of the Royals and American Oilmen, because Conventional Armies win wars. Now let's see what they can do with it. Not since the bad old days of the Cold War have I seen so many lies and so much disinformation fed to the American People, by a more scurrilous bunch of wannabe Masters of the Universe, than what the Neocons in league with Big Oil and the Royals have delivered up for mass consumption.
36
Religious beliefs have been kicking around for awhile and still have appeal to those who want to think they are eternal, but reason, though not as rosy as belief, is slowly prevailing and the obscenely wealthy will have to find another way to con the masses before actual equality erupts.
5
I've impressions about ISIS, not necessarily based in logic as much as fear of worst case scenarios. I fear it represents too many if not most Sunnis, old and young. Its recruiting strategy is working thanks to the internet in which its excesses succeed.
It's ideology is fanatic, rigid, immoderate, reactionary Koranic idealism. It's appeal is to extremists, which means its adherents are not about win-win compromise nor any kind toleration. It is a gung-ho and without doubts and ambivalences.
It's ideology is fanatic, rigid, immoderate, reactionary Koranic idealism. It's appeal is to extremists, which means its adherents are not about win-win compromise nor any kind toleration. It is a gung-ho and without doubts and ambivalences.
4
How come, with our obscene defense budget, we see a bunch of impoverished rebels on donkeys as an existential threat to the US? Why can’t we let the people of the Middle East resolve their ethnic, religious and political differences without our meddlesome interference? We are supplying everyone in the Middle East with straight razors and betting on whom will be the last heathen standing. It is not surprising that everyone in the Middle East want to attack us.
47
Once again we have pundits making false equivalents.
There is zero relationship between the rise of the USSR and ISIL, other than the desire to provoke fear among among Americans, usually with the goal of making us spend blood and treasury on stupid policies that are ultimately self-defeating.
The only solution to this regional conflict is to shred the Sykes-Picot "agreement" that externally created non-sensical states where national boundaries do not conform to the ethnic, tribal and religious realities on the ground.
There is zero relationship between the rise of the USSR and ISIL, other than the desire to provoke fear among among Americans, usually with the goal of making us spend blood and treasury on stupid policies that are ultimately self-defeating.
The only solution to this regional conflict is to shred the Sykes-Picot "agreement" that externally created non-sensical states where national boundaries do not conform to the ethnic, tribal and religious realities on the ground.
33
This is not the story to date. It is the conservative re write. Saddam did not "fall, followed by a foreign occupation." The bush administration using false pretenses invaded, destroyed all the existing instituions of civil society, lost the good will of the people by failing to provide security, did not prepare for the need to retain order at all, and further lost the trust of the world by setting up gulags and torturing prisoners, and thus left a gaping hole into which radical extremists strode. Then the neocons, as part of destroying existing civil institutions followed a policy called "de Baathificafion." It barred all the former members of civil government, the technocrats, from participation in rebuilding Iraq. The leaders of isil were some of those pushed out with no hope, no prospects, but loads of expertise and highly technical training.
bush and the conservative approach to foreign policy created this mess. douthat is correct that it will be cleaned up. President Oabam has outlined a three year strategy for doing that. Unlike the neo cons who think if you drop some bombs on people they will bend to your will, our President knows this is a complicated situation that requires action on multiple fronts simultaneously. And only part of that struggle is military. We will prevail, but beware of conservatives trying to lie about the past because if they get power they will turn this and many other messes they left last time into disasters we may not be able to clean up.
bush and the conservative approach to foreign policy created this mess. douthat is correct that it will be cleaned up. President Oabam has outlined a three year strategy for doing that. Unlike the neo cons who think if you drop some bombs on people they will bend to your will, our President knows this is a complicated situation that requires action on multiple fronts simultaneously. And only part of that struggle is military. We will prevail, but beware of conservatives trying to lie about the past because if they get power they will turn this and many other messes they left last time into disasters we may not be able to clean up.
126
If you read it you should be able to see that the autocrat was the Tsar and the foreign occupation was by Britain and others to try to hold off the Bolsheviks. Pay attention!
All Bush did was to repeat the intelligence he inherited from Clinton. All Bush did was listen to the CIA Director he inherited from Clinton
ISIS is a threat only to people in their vicinity, not to Americans. They are like distant gnats. China/North Korea and Russia are a much bigger threat to the United States. They are like hungry lions prowling in our midst.
We do not raise enough money in taxes to pay for any wars in the Middle East. In fact, we have to borrow hundreds of billions from adversaries such as China just to keep our government from shutting down.
Why do conservatives care so much about tiny threats like ISIS and at the same time advocate for lower taxes on the rich, when we are so much in debt? Yet they call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare even though that worsens one of our biggest problems, economic inequality.
Some people have awful priorities. I think it stems from a pathological embrace of stupid ideologies.
We do not raise enough money in taxes to pay for any wars in the Middle East. In fact, we have to borrow hundreds of billions from adversaries such as China just to keep our government from shutting down.
Why do conservatives care so much about tiny threats like ISIS and at the same time advocate for lower taxes on the rich, when we are so much in debt? Yet they call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare even though that worsens one of our biggest problems, economic inequality.
Some people have awful priorities. I think it stems from a pathological embrace of stupid ideologies.
174
The answer is easy - the wealthy get even richer from war without having to sacrifice a thing, they don't even have to pay for it.
2
Consider the possibility that "conservatives" lowered taxes when they started a war in Iraq and accelerated their efforts to starve Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps even using the undunded Medicare Prescription Drug Plan to cause a deficit. Can it be that the "stupid ideologies" the Ayn Rand nonesense, is simply a cover for oligarchy/aristocracy?
2
Hi Cassandra,
Pretty good.
But I hope you realize the futility of your posts. Cassandra was NEVER wrong but nobody ever listened to her either. A result of Apollo's curse on her. He gave her the gift of prophecy if she promised to lay in his bed, but once given the gift she reneged on him. Hence a Greek God could not take back a gift, so Apollo cursed her by making her unbelievable. So she goes through the entirety of Greek myths always right but ignored.
So when some idiot accuses another person of being Cassandraish, they should always point out this fact.
Pretty good.
But I hope you realize the futility of your posts. Cassandra was NEVER wrong but nobody ever listened to her either. A result of Apollo's curse on her. He gave her the gift of prophecy if she promised to lay in his bed, but once given the gift she reneged on him. Hence a Greek God could not take back a gift, so Apollo cursed her by making her unbelievable. So she goes through the entirety of Greek myths always right but ignored.
So when some idiot accuses another person of being Cassandraish, they should always point out this fact.
So what does it mean that the next American president commits fully to its destruction? We've seen this movie before.
86
The Bolsheviks controlled the largest country in the world. The Islamic State controls the desert hinterland between Damascus and Baghdad. ISIS will never be able to take Baghdad because the Shiites will stop them. And they will never conquer the Kurdish homeland either. Assad is clearly too strong for them in Syria; that is why they headed East and North to Iraq. They are a radical Sunni movement, and as long as it's convenient for Saudi Arabia to have ISIS around as a counterweight to Iran, ISIS will survive. If there is every a reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, ISIS will be crushed.
17
Premise (Can the Istlamic State Survive) is wrong. It (ISIS) is by design to evolve into something quite different, something seemingly reasonable. That analogy with Bolsheviks, deeply flawed: for in this case, since 2008, the West has actually deigned this précis outcome. It is important to acknowledge that ISIS is funded by some of our best friends: Turkey and Qatar. That is by design as well.
Consider this : If the reference platform be liberal democracy, the idea of a Caliphate would abhorrent; But if the reference platform is ISIS type entity, establishment of Caliphate would seem entirely reasonable, welcome.
It is my contention that at some point in recent history, the Powers that Be in the West concluded that Caliphate, Islamism is a good idea for the ME and for the world in general. That this approval of Islamic Caliphate has important support from both (extreme liberal and extreme conservative) movement. The support may not be apparent, but that is what it is.
When Mr.Douthat writes, quote, the next American president will commit fully to its destruction, unquote, it is not only wishful thinking, but also begs the question on lack of similar sentiments for the current American president.
Consider this : If the reference platform be liberal democracy, the idea of a Caliphate would abhorrent; But if the reference platform is ISIS type entity, establishment of Caliphate would seem entirely reasonable, welcome.
It is my contention that at some point in recent history, the Powers that Be in the West concluded that Caliphate, Islamism is a good idea for the ME and for the world in general. That this approval of Islamic Caliphate has important support from both (extreme liberal and extreme conservative) movement. The support may not be apparent, but that is what it is.
When Mr.Douthat writes, quote, the next American president will commit fully to its destruction, unquote, it is not only wishful thinking, but also begs the question on lack of similar sentiments for the current American president.
When considering such a question, one must weigh two other questions: 1) Are there sufficient internal inconsistencies in their self-governance and governance of conquered lands and peoples that they might disintegrate eventually from them?; and 2) are the forces arrayed against them sufficiently strong and unified, as well as sufficiently resolved against their survival, that those forces might win?
No … and, for the present, no again. So, why would current indications suggest that ISIS can’t survive?
Why must we take seriously Mr. Obama’s claim that Islamic State’s recent captures of Ramadi and Palmyra merely represent a “tactical setback”? Unless the answer to those two questions above are yes and yes, the tactical becomes the strategic, then the permanent. Ross entertainingly exhumes the Soviet Union, presumably as an example of why nothing is forever, but, lest we forget, the U.S.S.R. lasted officially almost SEVENTY YEARS (1922-1991); and its primary surviving remnant is STILL giving the world agita. Imagine how many heads might be lopped off on Middle Eastern sands if ISIS is only as successful as the U.S.S.R. was.
But, to be fair, Ross’s main argument is that ISIS COULD survive, if it adapts minimally to changing internal and external pressures and if its adversaries remain fractured and unresolved to annihilate them. I’ll buy that argument, but, frankly, I see every reason presently for why they will survive, and precious few to suggest that they won’t.
No … and, for the present, no again. So, why would current indications suggest that ISIS can’t survive?
Why must we take seriously Mr. Obama’s claim that Islamic State’s recent captures of Ramadi and Palmyra merely represent a “tactical setback”? Unless the answer to those two questions above are yes and yes, the tactical becomes the strategic, then the permanent. Ross entertainingly exhumes the Soviet Union, presumably as an example of why nothing is forever, but, lest we forget, the U.S.S.R. lasted officially almost SEVENTY YEARS (1922-1991); and its primary surviving remnant is STILL giving the world agita. Imagine how many heads might be lopped off on Middle Eastern sands if ISIS is only as successful as the U.S.S.R. was.
But, to be fair, Ross’s main argument is that ISIS COULD survive, if it adapts minimally to changing internal and external pressures and if its adversaries remain fractured and unresolved to annihilate them. I’ll buy that argument, but, frankly, I see every reason presently for why they will survive, and precious few to suggest that they won’t.
3
Richard,
I fear you are indeed correct. When the USSR collapsed it is was because we had a better idea that destroyed the core of that Empire. We had democracy. We had the power to turn down the thermostat, develop new technologies and put on sweaters.
When Reagan and Thatcher came along the dice had already been cast for the USSR. When we chose Reagan's oligarchs we cast the dice on our western democracy. We no longer had the better idea as the mavens of Wall Street are not better than the Mullahs of Riyadh,
When Reagan went to Philadelphia Mississippi we were well on our way to inheriting the wind. In our struggle against their insanely jealous and brutal "God' we have Mammon and I fear a long gruesome battle.
We were supposed to be personally empowered without any supernatural help and that was America's strength. We gave that up for a very short "morning in America."
Richard I fear the only salvation we have is "liberals and reality based "conservatives" getting together and removing the money changers, priests and hypocrites from the temple and that would be a real miracle.
I fear you are indeed correct. When the USSR collapsed it is was because we had a better idea that destroyed the core of that Empire. We had democracy. We had the power to turn down the thermostat, develop new technologies and put on sweaters.
When Reagan and Thatcher came along the dice had already been cast for the USSR. When we chose Reagan's oligarchs we cast the dice on our western democracy. We no longer had the better idea as the mavens of Wall Street are not better than the Mullahs of Riyadh,
When Reagan went to Philadelphia Mississippi we were well on our way to inheriting the wind. In our struggle against their insanely jealous and brutal "God' we have Mammon and I fear a long gruesome battle.
We were supposed to be personally empowered without any supernatural help and that was America's strength. We gave that up for a very short "morning in America."
Richard I fear the only salvation we have is "liberals and reality based "conservatives" getting together and removing the money changers, priests and hypocrites from the temple and that would be a real miracle.
"and so long as ISIS remains at war with Iran and its proxies, the Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar) won’t root unreservedly against it."
-------------------------------
Laugh.
The USA does not have sway with these "weak and friendly" Sunni powers? If not, drone the ISIS financiers. What is the CIA and NSA for?
Realpolitik in the Middle East is not linear. The amoral, convoluting maneuvering would perplex even Niccolò Machiavelli.
-------------------------------
Laugh.
The USA does not have sway with these "weak and friendly" Sunni powers? If not, drone the ISIS financiers. What is the CIA and NSA for?
Realpolitik in the Middle East is not linear. The amoral, convoluting maneuvering would perplex even Niccolò Machiavelli.
6
If one considers the past thousands of years in the Middle East, it is easy to see that the survival of ISIS as an entity or a country or a tribe is neither important nor likely. Start counting backward from NOW, and list all such tribes, religions, emirates, nations, co-operatives, alliances, and myriad other entities, and even include the moving and moveable borders of that area, and you will see what I mean. Hundreds of years from now, the so-called Western nations will likely be similar to those that exist this very minute, but that simply will not happen in the Middle East. Tribes and history and loyalties are all that matter there. And ISIS does not fit any long-term niche of what will remain.........
7
Fair questions.
An atheist friend who lived around the globe said Islam leaves a trail of ignorance & poverty. The reason is built into to Islam's DNA.
A non-theological explanation for the creation of Islam (& rapid growth) was to make the world safe for Mohammed. He was orphan in a society based upon blood vendetta law. For a time he was protected by distant kin but without that anyone could murder him without penalty. In Mecca Mohammed worked to create a tribe with him on top based on belief instead of ethnicity. Forced out of Mecca he and his band moved to Medina. Without income they fell to banditry. The booty attracted converts. The deal was join and share in the booty, pay extortion tax, or die. Apostasy=death. In essence he ran Medina like a Mafia. This combo created a pyramid org that grew exponentially.
The other tribes based on kin couldn't grow faster than reproduction, Islam could. Once it became clear Islam would not be vanquished it was inevitable that it would grow & subsume the others. Recognition of this creates incentive to join as the earlier one joins the higher on the expanding pyramid one is placed.
The subsequent Islamic empire was built on banditry, raiding & extortion. No interest in development or education, they never governed well. Agriculture productivity fell as did populations. Conversion reduced extortion revenues. Thus once growth ended the Islamic states (not religion) broke up fairly quickly. Contain Isis & it will do the same.
An atheist friend who lived around the globe said Islam leaves a trail of ignorance & poverty. The reason is built into to Islam's DNA.
A non-theological explanation for the creation of Islam (& rapid growth) was to make the world safe for Mohammed. He was orphan in a society based upon blood vendetta law. For a time he was protected by distant kin but without that anyone could murder him without penalty. In Mecca Mohammed worked to create a tribe with him on top based on belief instead of ethnicity. Forced out of Mecca he and his band moved to Medina. Without income they fell to banditry. The booty attracted converts. The deal was join and share in the booty, pay extortion tax, or die. Apostasy=death. In essence he ran Medina like a Mafia. This combo created a pyramid org that grew exponentially.
The other tribes based on kin couldn't grow faster than reproduction, Islam could. Once it became clear Islam would not be vanquished it was inevitable that it would grow & subsume the others. Recognition of this creates incentive to join as the earlier one joins the higher on the expanding pyramid one is placed.
The subsequent Islamic empire was built on banditry, raiding & extortion. No interest in development or education, they never governed well. Agriculture productivity fell as did populations. Conversion reduced extortion revenues. Thus once growth ended the Islamic states (not religion) broke up fairly quickly. Contain Isis & it will do the same.
23
I think the comparisons with the Soviets is apt. Both Soviets, Isis (& Douthat's opinions) are based upon ideology.
The issue is ignorance and poverty.
Soviet Communism while not economically sophisticated was materialistic and so there was concern for productivity & material well being. It was also interested in dev & educ. When Stalin came to power perhaps 80% of Russia was dirt poor & illiterate. Only 3 years after Stalin's death they launched Sputnik, the space race and also had the bomb. The system got off to a rough start. While politically perverse, in other ways for most people, materially and intellectually, the Soviet Union from the late 1960s through the early 1980s was not a bad place to live. It had decent housing, education, food, medicine and public transportation. Had they adapted more like China did, not invaded Afghanistan and relied so much on oil, they probably would have survived in a form better than China has.
Islam is a political ideology that happens to have a strong religious component. Isis is realizing that. There ideology thrives on expansion and extortion/extraction of revenue not in the development and creation of revenue through its own productivity. Prior to the emergence of global oil economy in 1945 Islam was atrophying to inconsequence. Oil in a sense creates a new form of extracting wealth from productive peoples thus giving Islam new vitality but otherwise one finds they still atrophy in ignorance. When oil era fades they will too.
The issue is ignorance and poverty.
Soviet Communism while not economically sophisticated was materialistic and so there was concern for productivity & material well being. It was also interested in dev & educ. When Stalin came to power perhaps 80% of Russia was dirt poor & illiterate. Only 3 years after Stalin's death they launched Sputnik, the space race and also had the bomb. The system got off to a rough start. While politically perverse, in other ways for most people, materially and intellectually, the Soviet Union from the late 1960s through the early 1980s was not a bad place to live. It had decent housing, education, food, medicine and public transportation. Had they adapted more like China did, not invaded Afghanistan and relied so much on oil, they probably would have survived in a form better than China has.
Islam is a political ideology that happens to have a strong religious component. Isis is realizing that. There ideology thrives on expansion and extortion/extraction of revenue not in the development and creation of revenue through its own productivity. Prior to the emergence of global oil economy in 1945 Islam was atrophying to inconsequence. Oil in a sense creates a new form of extracting wealth from productive peoples thus giving Islam new vitality but otherwise one finds they still atrophy in ignorance. When oil era fades they will too.
8
A further point could be argued that we are on the wrong side of the shia - sunni rivalry.
It is Sunni-Wahhabist Saudi Arabia that pushes fundamentalist Islamic madrassas around the world, of which Isis is a manifestation of.
I am unaware of any Shia terrorist cells having been planted in the west. I am unaware of any Shia Muslims involved in 9/11.
While Iranian system of government is hardly free or liberal, it constitutionally is a republic, with elections that seem to allow some evolution of both society and government (though very slow).
When we look inside Iran we see that they do educate their young people and that despite trade embargoes they have developed their economy to some extent. Many of their young people aspire to a western level of existence. Part of the genius of Obama's current deal with Iran is that if a deal is not worked out, there will be renewed and extremely high pressure on the Iranian government evolve into something else.
I think, at the very least, we should be a little more neutral in the rift between Saudi's and Iran, Shia's and Sunnis. We should be putting pressure on the Saudi's to end their global madrassas funding and that they make their society into something more resembling Iran's.
This would hamstring the Neocons (like Netanyahu, Douthat and David Brooks) who constantly need an enemy and a war to enhance conservative pretense to power. But by now we should know full well that Neocons are not to be trusted in any kind of civics.
It is Sunni-Wahhabist Saudi Arabia that pushes fundamentalist Islamic madrassas around the world, of which Isis is a manifestation of.
I am unaware of any Shia terrorist cells having been planted in the west. I am unaware of any Shia Muslims involved in 9/11.
While Iranian system of government is hardly free or liberal, it constitutionally is a republic, with elections that seem to allow some evolution of both society and government (though very slow).
When we look inside Iran we see that they do educate their young people and that despite trade embargoes they have developed their economy to some extent. Many of their young people aspire to a western level of existence. Part of the genius of Obama's current deal with Iran is that if a deal is not worked out, there will be renewed and extremely high pressure on the Iranian government evolve into something else.
I think, at the very least, we should be a little more neutral in the rift between Saudi's and Iran, Shia's and Sunnis. We should be putting pressure on the Saudi's to end their global madrassas funding and that they make their society into something more resembling Iran's.
This would hamstring the Neocons (like Netanyahu, Douthat and David Brooks) who constantly need an enemy and a war to enhance conservative pretense to power. But by now we should know full well that Neocons are not to be trusted in any kind of civics.
14
Documents secured from isil leaders by the US military show that the former saddam officials who created isil, after toying with al qaeda in Iraq as a means of getting money and recruits, are not interested in religion at all. In all their documents there was only a handful of references in passing to religion. There was a detailed outline of how to secure territory using the same tactics the Baath party used in Iraq. Which is precisely what they are doing. They pose a front as a "Islamic State" but that is for recruitment and propaganda purposes. The real motivation behind their leadership, the technical experts who were cut out of any hope after the illegal invasion of Iraq, are interested on power for themselves. That is all. Without them, this organization cannot hold together because there is nothing to hold it together.
Never forget, absent the bush/neocon invasion of. Iraq, none of this situation would exist. These groups are direct descendants of the bush catastrophy. His invasion will be looked at as the worst foriegn policy decision ever made in our history, and every republican running for presdietnexcept rand paul is advocating the same sort of policy agenda, and even hiring the bush people who made this mess. (paul is an idiot for so many reasons, but he got the fact that we should not invade Iraq correct)
Never forget, absent the bush/neocon invasion of. Iraq, none of this situation would exist. These groups are direct descendants of the bush catastrophy. His invasion will be looked at as the worst foriegn policy decision ever made in our history, and every republican running for presdietnexcept rand paul is advocating the same sort of policy agenda, and even hiring the bush people who made this mess. (paul is an idiot for so many reasons, but he got the fact that we should not invade Iraq correct)
2
If al-Qaida could mutate into the splinter ISIS due to internal power struggle and drying up of funds could the latter hope for a different fate when the whole world is fed up with the daily bloodbath and mayhem perpetrated by these self-styled champions of Islam- the faith that always preached universal Brotherhood and peace? So, it's immaterial whether the US or other outside powers join a fight with the ISIS. Since the real backers of the ISIS happen to be the Arab Sunni States, and if they themselves are threatened by their creature, how long could they remain aloof from the threat lurking around them. Finally, the comparison between the Bolshevik revolution and the ISIS represented barbarism seems farfetched and misplaced.
3
"the faith that always preached universal Brotherhood and peace?"
It preaches that if you surrender to Islam, that is, submit yourself to it, only then do you get brotherhood and peace. Otherwise, its all war and all the time.
Once you join, it will leave you in poverty and ignorance. If you decide to leave, it will murder you for doing so.
Not exactly the "universal" definition of "brotherhood" and "peace."
It preaches that if you surrender to Islam, that is, submit yourself to it, only then do you get brotherhood and peace. Otherwise, its all war and all the time.
Once you join, it will leave you in poverty and ignorance. If you decide to leave, it will murder you for doing so.
Not exactly the "universal" definition of "brotherhood" and "peace."
1
it seems like you're not putting enough emphasis on the role of the Sunni-Shia conflict: ISIS sits between a Shia-dominated regime (Iraq) and another (the Assad regime) that has repressed its Sunnis and is supported by Shia Hezbollah and Shia Iran. the messianic component of ISIS is probably less important than Sunnis' sense of needing a strong protector against these regimes - they'll take the 'theology' that comes with whoever protects them (in the same way the Taliban were initially embraced by moderate Afghans). if 'volunteer' militias, which are, plain and simple, Shia armies, become Iraq's answer to ISIS, expect more Sunni support for ISIS, and greater fragmentation of Iraq, and if Assad doesn't offer to share power with Syria's Sunnis, he'll be the ruler of a mini-Syria. the way to stop ISIS is power-sharing by both regimes; I don't see any indications this is even on the horizon.
3
Agree with your analysis up to a point. There is no country called Iraq. There is now no country called Yugoslavia.
As a Muslim African-American citizen and author of the book "We Fundamentalists" we are not surprise of the frantic message of doom when soldiers of despots are facing the true faith of ISIS! Nor, are we surprise of the hypocrisy, shock, and frantic news of fear when they the Western imperialist secular governments and their corporate media conglomerate allies realize that ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other Islamic org. are successful in their jihad against those heretic`s at home and infidel imperialist in our Muslim homelands!
Yes, the fall of Ramadi, Iraq and the fall of Palmyra, Syria reflects the strong faith of those believers in Islam fighting with ISIS, against those who fight for despots and tyrants with Muslim-names-only! Yes, Western secular imperials money and arms, with media corporate support-backing corrupt regimes with Muslim-names, ghost soldiers on the payroll, greed, sectarianism, and lies is not winning the hearts and minds war! Indeed, there will always be a frantic message of despair; no one likes to fight and die on the front lines for lies, no one!
Keeping it real-it`s a pity my country uses a 'nom de guerre' on a failed imperialist foreign policy called "America at war with Islam" We Muslim fundamentalists world-wide knows that "Injustice makes your world full of Terrorists" So let them worry about those old pagan antiquity in Palmyra, those people in prisons near-by is enough for us! Let them worry about Ramadi`s broken glass, those believers are free!
Yes, the fall of Ramadi, Iraq and the fall of Palmyra, Syria reflects the strong faith of those believers in Islam fighting with ISIS, against those who fight for despots and tyrants with Muslim-names-only! Yes, Western secular imperials money and arms, with media corporate support-backing corrupt regimes with Muslim-names, ghost soldiers on the payroll, greed, sectarianism, and lies is not winning the hearts and minds war! Indeed, there will always be a frantic message of despair; no one likes to fight and die on the front lines for lies, no one!
Keeping it real-it`s a pity my country uses a 'nom de guerre' on a failed imperialist foreign policy called "America at war with Islam" We Muslim fundamentalists world-wide knows that "Injustice makes your world full of Terrorists" So let them worry about those old pagan antiquity in Palmyra, those people in prisons near-by is enough for us! Let them worry about Ramadi`s broken glass, those believers are free!
Oh, yeah, that's what we really need--a president "who commits fully to [the] destruction" of somebody else in the Middle East. We had such a president. His name was Geo. W. Bush. He committed fully to forcing Iraq into war and then destroying its existing government. After that, he and his neocon acolytes didn't have any idea what to do.
On top of that, the next president is going to have her hands full with China, which is sending new signals every day that we're headed toward confrontation.
When will we get this through our heads? We can blow stuff up better than anybody on earth. But we can't build anything lasting to replace it because, quite simply, we lack the finesse to solve problems that massive amounts of bombs and dollars won't fix. That cluelessness is an American limitation, just like snobbiness is a French limitation and tactlessness is a Russian limitation. As Clint Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations." We seem to have perpetual trouble taking that advice.
On top of that, the next president is going to have her hands full with China, which is sending new signals every day that we're headed toward confrontation.
When will we get this through our heads? We can blow stuff up better than anybody on earth. But we can't build anything lasting to replace it because, quite simply, we lack the finesse to solve problems that massive amounts of bombs and dollars won't fix. That cluelessness is an American limitation, just like snobbiness is a French limitation and tactlessness is a Russian limitation. As Clint Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations." We seem to have perpetual trouble taking that advice.
35
@Dan Weber
The US helped rebuild post-WW2 Europe and Japan, and that took decades. Part of the reason that recent actions have faltered is that President Obama wants to cut and run instead of committing to the region.
The US helped rebuild post-WW2 Europe and Japan, and that took decades. Part of the reason that recent actions have faltered is that President Obama wants to cut and run instead of committing to the region.
Couldn't agree with you more. I feel that Obama is taking a prudent and intelligent course of action. This Islamic war is not our fight(the west) and no amount of arms or soldiers can change times . The neocons may believe that the US can use its military power to affect change but they are dreaming. Isn't Iraq a convincing enough example,
Excellent, just as the Romans and the British ended there stents at the top of the hill.
1
In 2003, when it should not have invaded, the US invaded Iraq. The result was trillions of dollars of debt caused by spending without taxation. The US invasion is the root cause of this turmoil in the Mideast.
Now is the time that the US should go in and defeat the IS and govern Iraq and Syria for the next 50 years till both become secular democracies, a la Japan.
Again the US is not doing what it should be doing.
Now is the time that the US should go in and defeat the IS and govern Iraq and Syria for the next 50 years till both become secular democracies, a la Japan.
Again the US is not doing what it should be doing.
1
ISIS will persist, advance and dig in until they are stopped, defeated and destroyed by a force more powerful and determined than they are. This force will also have to be highly motivated. Right now, the opposition is not committed or motivated. What will it take to change this paralysis? Something worth fighting for obviously. How does the survival of Western civilization float your boat? Save it now, or save it later, but a reckoning is rapidly coming due.
4
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Douthat. ISIS is a menace. They are much more adaptable and savvy than any terrorist group we have seen, and their rigid ideology can bend quite easily when it comes to fund raising, and other exigencies. I think they may well prevail and establish a state more or less in the territory they now occupy. But in seven months, seven years, or seventy years, they will surely overreach, as all such fanatical groups always do. i don't know exactly why they do, but I imagine it has to do with unsustainable economy. Eventually they reach beyond their grasp and fall. So will ISIS, hopefully sooner rather than later.
1
What's more likely to kill the caliphate than an American president? Smart phones.
6
Yes, the New Caliphate, the Islamic State can survive. For a while. All civilizations on Earth rise and fall, as do empires. We saw the fall of the Monarchy of the Romanovs in 1917, and the fall of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1989. We are witnessing the downfall of our own Pax Americana, our independence from Britain in 1775, and now our own deliquescence, however much we deny it. The UK is still a monarchy, but Britannia no longer rules the waves and is doddering, notwithstanding the ultra-long reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Grmany had a couple of Reichs that were soundly whipped and defeated after the Holocaust in WWII and WWI's depredations last century. They won't be rising again very soon. The Pyramids are still standing though the Valley of the Kings has been vandalized and the ancient Pharaoh's intimate mummies and treasures are on display in museums all over the world. And the Wailing Wall is still standing in the relatively new State of Israel (68 years) and India and Pakistan are in great disarray, and China is rising and accruing new territories in the South China Sea. There'll always be a Japan. ISIS is destroying monuments and artifacts with sledgehammers where they are ruling - near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, which still exist in Iraq. But sooner or later, hopefully sooner, the Islamic State will fall. And it can't be soon enough for the West.
2
We give them their greatest advantage by being their enemies. If we were sitting on the sidelines (as we should be) giving medicine and food to the displaced and refuges, it would be a local struggle and much harder to justify ideologically.
11
Ross, what you seem to forget is that US blundering military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hapless "support" to in Lybia and Syria has set this monster loose in the first place.
After more than 12 years of abject military and political failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, what evidence do you have to suggest that the US can stop this madness? More troops? We've tried several surges, and their effect was at most very localized and temporary. Sending more weapons? We see that US supplied weapons in Afghanistan, during the Soviet invasion, and now from retreating Afghan and Iraqi troops, are being used against us.
And you, of all people, who loves to natter on about religion, should know that the major difference between the Soviet experience and that in the Middle East, is the power of religious fanaticism.
After more than 12 years of abject military and political failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, what evidence do you have to suggest that the US can stop this madness? More troops? We've tried several surges, and their effect was at most very localized and temporary. Sending more weapons? We see that US supplied weapons in Afghanistan, during the Soviet invasion, and now from retreating Afghan and Iraqi troops, are being used against us.
And you, of all people, who loves to natter on about religion, should know that the major difference between the Soviet experience and that in the Middle East, is the power of religious fanaticism.
14
It seems to me that there is a different ray of light, which may show that over the (very) long haul, barbarism caused my religious fanaticism, brain-washing and ignorance, the hall mark of the long running Sunni/Shia conflict in the Middle East, will one day burn itself out: the pro-gay-marriage vote in Ireland.
The dogmatic, ignorant and fanatic wing of Catholicism has long held sway in Ireland, longer than in most other European countries. But INTERNAL changes in that society (perhaps with a little help from the outside, the EU) have caused the Irish to discard the shakes of religious dogma and prejudice and join the modern world.
It is only through INTERNAL changes in a society that lasting changes from centuries of prejudice and ignorance can gain a foothold. Trying to force such changes from the outside, especially through military force, is completely self-defeating, as the US's disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
The dogmatic, ignorant and fanatic wing of Catholicism has long held sway in Ireland, longer than in most other European countries. But INTERNAL changes in that society (perhaps with a little help from the outside, the EU) have caused the Irish to discard the shakes of religious dogma and prejudice and join the modern world.
It is only through INTERNAL changes in a society that lasting changes from centuries of prejudice and ignorance can gain a foothold. Trying to force such changes from the outside, especially through military force, is completely self-defeating, as the US's disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
2
Iraq and Afghanistan are two different and unconnected wars. If the neo cons, of who douthat is one ideologically, had finished off al qaeda and rebuilt Afghanistan it would likely be a stable democracy and reliable ally today. Instead the bushie neocons used 9/11 as cover to divert attention to the illegal and unrelated invasion of Iraq. You are correct that this situation is the direct result of that invasion and the botched and absurd policies used during the occupation, but please do not conflate those wars. One was just and right...and abandoned. The other was illegal and a disgrace. And badly botched. And because of the failure of conservative policies which douthat is advocating for more of, we face the incredible mess we see today.
1
The barbarity of ISIS is just so seventh century, not even medieval but pure Dark Ages.
And that's its strength. A return to to a pure egalitarian Islam like that of the Prophet and his early successors. A revolt against the corruption of the petro-royals and the juntas and the secular state.
The beheadings and mass executions were commonplace in early Moslem and Christian warfare alike, with W manifesting the depths of his ignorance by using the word "Crusade". For Moslems, the crusades mean repeated invasion and genocide.
Those shocked by ISIS tactics should read the Old Testament.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may seem horrifying as a caliph to the West, but his caliphate is of the seventh century, and is expanding, the sign of legitimacy for a large Moslem population crying for a caliphate.
Al-Baghdadi gains his greatest credibility from his enemy, the American crusaders. ISIS and the American right are united in their craving for American boots on the ground.
Apocalyptic Islam and Christian are united in belief of an Armageddon in Syria. Curiously they both believe that Jesus will lead their forces.
The best American policy for dealing with ISIS is complete, immediate, and permanent withdrawal of the American military from the Mideast.
Forcing Netanyahu to make peace with the Palestinians would also help.
And that's its strength. A return to to a pure egalitarian Islam like that of the Prophet and his early successors. A revolt against the corruption of the petro-royals and the juntas and the secular state.
The beheadings and mass executions were commonplace in early Moslem and Christian warfare alike, with W manifesting the depths of his ignorance by using the word "Crusade". For Moslems, the crusades mean repeated invasion and genocide.
Those shocked by ISIS tactics should read the Old Testament.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may seem horrifying as a caliph to the West, but his caliphate is of the seventh century, and is expanding, the sign of legitimacy for a large Moslem population crying for a caliphate.
Al-Baghdadi gains his greatest credibility from his enemy, the American crusaders. ISIS and the American right are united in their craving for American boots on the ground.
Apocalyptic Islam and Christian are united in belief of an Armageddon in Syria. Curiously they both believe that Jesus will lead their forces.
The best American policy for dealing with ISIS is complete, immediate, and permanent withdrawal of the American military from the Mideast.
Forcing Netanyahu to make peace with the Palestinians would also help.
10
I suppose it is possible with enough pressure to force Israel to make some sort of treaty with the Palestinians, but how do you make real peace? The
Palestinians are unlikely to accept a genuinely disarmed entity; more than 20
years after Oslo they seem no closer to a unified government that speaks for all
factions, they seem no closer to a government that rests its power on the
legitimacy of the Palestinians' own electoral laws, they seem no closer to a government that is not a kleptocracy plundering its own people heartlessly.
None of those fatal flaws is due to Israeli influence, and that is not even an exhaustive list. What is the likelihood of such a crippled entity being able to
keep the peace even if it wanted to, given that the increased value of
"Palestine" as an actual state will only encourage factional fighting?
And who will provide structure and guidance to the Israel-Palestine dyadic
relationship, to ease the inevitable stresses between two states that have excellent reasons not to trust each other? AUN prepared to vote that the sun rises in the west if it would hurt Israel? A "robust" buffer force like that which was supposed to safeguard Lebanon? A Europe prepared to accept any enormity to keep the arms-for-oil trade booming and their millions of Muslim migrants quiescent? You've already called for the "complete,
immediate, andpermanent withdrawal of the American military from the Mideast", so that's out? Maybe pressure the Palestinians?
arcaneone
Palestinians are unlikely to accept a genuinely disarmed entity; more than 20
years after Oslo they seem no closer to a unified government that speaks for all
factions, they seem no closer to a government that rests its power on the
legitimacy of the Palestinians' own electoral laws, they seem no closer to a government that is not a kleptocracy plundering its own people heartlessly.
None of those fatal flaws is due to Israeli influence, and that is not even an exhaustive list. What is the likelihood of such a crippled entity being able to
keep the peace even if it wanted to, given that the increased value of
"Palestine" as an actual state will only encourage factional fighting?
And who will provide structure and guidance to the Israel-Palestine dyadic
relationship, to ease the inevitable stresses between two states that have excellent reasons not to trust each other? AUN prepared to vote that the sun rises in the west if it would hurt Israel? A "robust" buffer force like that which was supposed to safeguard Lebanon? A Europe prepared to accept any enormity to keep the arms-for-oil trade booming and their millions of Muslim migrants quiescent? You've already called for the "complete,
immediate, andpermanent withdrawal of the American military from the Mideast", so that's out? Maybe pressure the Palestinians?
arcaneone
1
No more barbaric than the Saudi Government. And while it is barbaric and visceral, how is it different in it's barbarity to cut off someone's head with a sword or blow it off with a 500 pound bomb?
Comparing ISIS to the Bolsheviks is more than a stretch. Look at the map published in your own paper to see the very limited areas where ISIS has complete control. The areas are thin lines and not a large geographical area. ISIS will be dealt with in due course.
2
How can ISIS survive, even if it conquers enough territory to re-establish a
Caliphate? Do they have a single hydrologist or petroleum engineer? A single surgeon or obstetrician? Do they have a single teacher of anything but the Koran? Who will maintain the infrastructure, collect the garbage, or print the bus schedule...oh, right, there won't be buses. ISIS is not going to become the next Soviet Union, Ross. It has no future in the community of nations. We have trained the army in Iraq for no apparent good outcome, but that does not mean we need to be overly worried about our own security Time to worry less about ISIL and more about building our own cities and roads and pipelines and schools and garbage disposal systems.
Caliphate? Do they have a single hydrologist or petroleum engineer? A single surgeon or obstetrician? Do they have a single teacher of anything but the Koran? Who will maintain the infrastructure, collect the garbage, or print the bus schedule...oh, right, there won't be buses. ISIS is not going to become the next Soviet Union, Ross. It has no future in the community of nations. We have trained the army in Iraq for no apparent good outcome, but that does not mean we need to be overly worried about our own security Time to worry less about ISIL and more about building our own cities and roads and pipelines and schools and garbage disposal systems.
14
There is a hilarious element to this debacle. The Saudis have financed all manner of mischief in the middle east. Now one of their vicious dogs is ripping at their flesh. Just keep throwing money at these brigands, Riyadh.
19
Although analogies are imperfect, we can go back even to the few early Christians, who survived the Roman Empire...dedication might count.
We know little of ISIS, yet Western youth are willing to go fight, there, just as Hemingway, et al fought against Franco. The NY Times should interview those who join ISIS, to get the inside scoop.
There is a spiritual malaise in our American empire, where corporations are put before people. We try to obliterate with bombs, yet our soldiers, the sons of our poor and foreigners, have little spirit to prevail, as they are in it for the money. Who would really want to fight for the current greed of capitalism.
We believe we have conquered God's creation, but global warming will conquer us.
We know little of ISIS, yet Western youth are willing to go fight, there, just as Hemingway, et al fought against Franco. The NY Times should interview those who join ISIS, to get the inside scoop.
There is a spiritual malaise in our American empire, where corporations are put before people. We try to obliterate with bombs, yet our soldiers, the sons of our poor and foreigners, have little spirit to prevail, as they are in it for the money. Who would really want to fight for the current greed of capitalism.
We believe we have conquered God's creation, but global warming will conquer us.
4
Isil claims religiosity, but documents outlining their tactics secured by the US military from isil leaders, who were saddam technocrats pushed out by debaathification, show their leaders have no interest in religion at all. They want power. The fighters may be recruited using religion, like the political right in the US dupes religious people into supporting them, while mocking them behind their backs, but the movement is run by secularists who are interested in money and power. Just like the gop.
1
It's hard to win a horse race without a horse. And ISIS is matched against Assad and Iraq. Starting with a fully entrenched regime, Assad has been unable to win the Syrian Civil War after four years, and has lost much territory and prestige. Meanwhile Iraq is more like a failed small empire than a unified state. So, in this three horse race, without major foreign intervention, I'd bet on ISIS. The other horses are played out; if they survive it will likely be as rump states.
3
An entire column about ISIS which never once mentions the word "Shia"?
An entire column about ISIS which never once uses the word "Shia"?
With all due respect, Mr. Dothat, ISIS exists because it fills a need. In both Iraq and Syria, the Sunni population feels threatened by their Shia government. They want to throw all Shia out of the Sunni-majority areas. They look to the toughest guy on the block to do this, to protect them from the Shia. That tough guy is ISIS.
An entire column about ISIS which never once uses the word "Shia"?
With all due respect, Mr. Dothat, ISIS exists because it fills a need. In both Iraq and Syria, the Sunni population feels threatened by their Shia government. They want to throw all Shia out of the Sunni-majority areas. They look to the toughest guy on the block to do this, to protect them from the Shia. That tough guy is ISIS.
8
Well reasoned. Ideologies may adapt, some do, perhaps this one will, perhaps it won't. Really it might go any way at all.
Right now our interest seem more focused on Iran, and with the Pacific trade deal in the air, China building Island to create soverign interest, almost anything could divert our atttention away. Saudia's interest seem focused on countering Iran, ISIS does that in Syria and Iraq; perhaps North Africa as well. And their recruiting strategy gives them an edge no one else is using as effectively: recruiting in situ and urging action, well, everywhere.
ISIS seems to be propagating itself in ways not seen for awhile, perhaps never given the new technologies now available.
So while these speculations may be way off base, who can say we should not be trying to imagine the worst and preparing for alternatives not now in our playbook?
Right now our interest seem more focused on Iran, and with the Pacific trade deal in the air, China building Island to create soverign interest, almost anything could divert our atttention away. Saudia's interest seem focused on countering Iran, ISIS does that in Syria and Iraq; perhaps North Africa as well. And their recruiting strategy gives them an edge no one else is using as effectively: recruiting in situ and urging action, well, everywhere.
ISIS seems to be propagating itself in ways not seen for awhile, perhaps never given the new technologies now available.
So while these speculations may be way off base, who can say we should not be trying to imagine the worst and preparing for alternatives not now in our playbook?
1
Let's first take time to appreciate how ISIS was born first, which also seems like the right time to appreciate the right-wing's hard fought battle to save the unborn.
The Middle East was relatively stable before George W. Bush's Neo-Con-Artist wrecking ball smashed it into pieces.
It took some time to create the right conditions for the Middle Eastern uterus to conceive ISIS, but smashing Iraq apart was the conception catalyst and it slowly grew and was born from a shattered Iraq, a beautiful bouncing baby boy of radical Islamic terror and anarchy enriched with years of Neo-Con fertilizer and right-wing mother's milk.
I appreciate George W. Bush's and the right-wing's love for the unborn which created ISIS.
Thank you, GWB and the Neo-Confederacy of right-wing dunces.
And thank you, Ivy Ziedrich, for reminding Jeb Bush and the world of his Jeb's brother's appreciation for the unborn.
The Middle East was relatively stable before George W. Bush's Neo-Con-Artist wrecking ball smashed it into pieces.
It took some time to create the right conditions for the Middle Eastern uterus to conceive ISIS, but smashing Iraq apart was the conception catalyst and it slowly grew and was born from a shattered Iraq, a beautiful bouncing baby boy of radical Islamic terror and anarchy enriched with years of Neo-Con fertilizer and right-wing mother's milk.
I appreciate George W. Bush's and the right-wing's love for the unborn which created ISIS.
Thank you, GWB and the Neo-Confederacy of right-wing dunces.
And thank you, Ivy Ziedrich, for reminding Jeb Bush and the world of his Jeb's brother's appreciation for the unborn.
206
The Neocons always seem to ideologically affix on the wrong enemy, too.
Back in the days of Clinton, they were all up into Iraq as an enemy. Even after we were attacked by a rogue from Afghanistan, they couldn't take their fix off of Iraq. They saw Afghanistan as a distraction, which serves to show what ideological idiots they are. Now the Neocon-International is all up in it about attacking Iran. Iran nor the Shia's have no sleeper terrorist cells in the West. Other than their attack on our embassy 35 years ago, they've been fairly benign from the stand point of our interest. I'm not saying we should be buddy's with them, or that they should be promoted as allies at the expense of other considerations. I'm just saying compared to Isis, and all the other fundamentalist manifestations spawned by Saudi Arabia, Iran is fairly benign.
Back in the days of Clinton, they were all up into Iraq as an enemy. Even after we were attacked by a rogue from Afghanistan, they couldn't take their fix off of Iraq. They saw Afghanistan as a distraction, which serves to show what ideological idiots they are. Now the Neocon-International is all up in it about attacking Iran. Iran nor the Shia's have no sleeper terrorist cells in the West. Other than their attack on our embassy 35 years ago, they've been fairly benign from the stand point of our interest. I'm not saying we should be buddy's with them, or that they should be promoted as allies at the expense of other considerations. I'm just saying compared to Isis, and all the other fundamentalist manifestations spawned by Saudi Arabia, Iran is fairly benign.
8
Socrates,
George W was but an inheritor of the deal we made in the 1970s with our oil oligarchies and the Saudis. When we poured billions into the Saudi Kingdom we financed our own destruction.
George W 's big crime is coming from one of the few families that has always prospered from war whether it was Cromwell's holy war or "Remember the Maine or the recent coup of Senator Prescott Bush and his ability to finance both sides in the second World War.
George W was but an inheritor of the deal we made in the 1970s with our oil oligarchies and the Saudis. When we poured billions into the Saudi Kingdom we financed our own destruction.
George W 's big crime is coming from one of the few families that has always prospered from war whether it was Cromwell's holy war or "Remember the Maine or the recent coup of Senator Prescott Bush and his ability to finance both sides in the second World War.
8
Wonderful metaphors, well written. Bravo.
2
"THE fall of an autocrat leads to foreign occupation and civil war. A revolutionary movement with a messianic vision capitalizes on the chaos to gain power. The revolutionaries rule through terror and the promise of utopia, and inspire copycats around the world."
Ross Douthat just admitted that the rise of ISIS is because of the Iraq war! Thank you! There would have never been an ISIS or an al Qaeda in Iraq or any terrorists roaming around Northern Iraq if not for the Republicans' war. Thank you, Ross. Now maybe you could explain that to Lindsey Graham.
Ross Douthat just admitted that the rise of ISIS is because of the Iraq war! Thank you! There would have never been an ISIS or an al Qaeda in Iraq or any terrorists roaming around Northern Iraq if not for the Republicans' war. Thank you, Ross. Now maybe you could explain that to Lindsey Graham.
35
You begin your piece by saying, "The fall of an autocrat leads to foreign occupation and civil war."
Saddam Hussein didn't fall. He was felled by the U.S. with the claim that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hussein, a fan of Sinatra and western suits, was no threat to the U.S.
Yet, the U.S. brought chaos into Iraq and ISIS was born out of that chaos and it is creating more chaos. As for ISIS, "if the next American president commits fully to its destruction," as you and many conservatives seem to want, more chaos will ensue. A vicious cycle, if you will.
The chaos thus far could have been avoided if we stayed out of Iraq to begin with, for Saddam Hussein, WMDs or not, kept a lid on things inside Iraq and was a counterweight to Iran.
As Whittier wrote:
"For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'"
Saddam Hussein didn't fall. He was felled by the U.S. with the claim that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hussein, a fan of Sinatra and western suits, was no threat to the U.S.
Yet, the U.S. brought chaos into Iraq and ISIS was born out of that chaos and it is creating more chaos. As for ISIS, "if the next American president commits fully to its destruction," as you and many conservatives seem to want, more chaos will ensue. A vicious cycle, if you will.
The chaos thus far could have been avoided if we stayed out of Iraq to begin with, for Saddam Hussein, WMDs or not, kept a lid on things inside Iraq and was a counterweight to Iran.
As Whittier wrote:
"For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'"
22
The soft power of fundamental ideas and presuppositions ultimately sets the course of history.
Recorded history is largely a depressing repetition of the same old story that drives history. It's about the intoxication of power that drives the will to power with the development of a belief system that justifies authoritarian centralized power (To be the alpha of primal instinct). It is these belief systems that allow men to become as gods among men --- controlling the lives of millions. (The Egyptian pharaohs claim descent of the sun god, thus divine right to rule; and as recent as the 20th century, the Japanese Emperor was obliged to renounce divine lineage after World War II
The global battle of political ideas which determines the outcome of the future is actually fairly easily to understand and is fundamentally religious at its very core.
The phrase "rule of law" is a religious formulations in the battle to humanize man above the instinct of genetic imprint. Science is limited to answering questions of natural phenomena and can offer only this from nature: power over the weak, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed.
The global and fundamental viewpoints always at variance are between the systems built on the rule of law vs. belief systems that justifies centralized authoritarian rule. (The socialist generally fall into this category)
Recorded history is largely a depressing repetition of the same old story that drives history. It's about the intoxication of power that drives the will to power with the development of a belief system that justifies authoritarian centralized power (To be the alpha of primal instinct). It is these belief systems that allow men to become as gods among men --- controlling the lives of millions. (The Egyptian pharaohs claim descent of the sun god, thus divine right to rule; and as recent as the 20th century, the Japanese Emperor was obliged to renounce divine lineage after World War II
The global battle of political ideas which determines the outcome of the future is actually fairly easily to understand and is fundamentally religious at its very core.
The phrase "rule of law" is a religious formulations in the battle to humanize man above the instinct of genetic imprint. Science is limited to answering questions of natural phenomena and can offer only this from nature: power over the weak, survival of the fittest, kill or be killed.
The global and fundamental viewpoints always at variance are between the systems built on the rule of law vs. belief systems that justifies centralized authoritarian rule. (The socialist generally fall into this category)
1
ISIS' existence is centered only on destruction, not construction, which will be their downfall. As they purport to establish caliphates (distorted as their understanding of such is), they murder civilians wantonly, ruin cultural artifacts and videotape savage beheadings of innocents. Recruits have also been disillusioned to see internal competition for group leadership and hypocrisy for things like their own sexual behavior. As both females and males abroad see how bankrupt ISIS, "cause" is, their recruits and wives will dry up. Those remaining behind the black flag will be at the mercy of those whose homes were ravaged by the Islamic State.
3
"...especially if the next American President commits fully...."
American, largely republican, Presidents have already:
Ushered in the 36 year rule of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Armed and funded the Afghans who changed their name to Taliban.
Armed Saddam Hussein, gave him satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Invaded and disastrously occupied Afghanistan.
Opened the Gates of Hell in the latest instalment of the US's 62 year Crusade of Folly, this one The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, giving Al Qaeda an opening there. The subsequent sectarian war, unseen in the modern Middle East, created the conditions that spawned ISIS.
62 years, trillions upon trillions of dollars wasted, millions of dead Afghans, Iranians and Iraqis, 7,000 dead, and counting, GI's and it keep getting worse, growing like a cancer in response to US mistakes, blunders and outright war crimes.
We need a President who will commit to getting out of the Middle East, forever. Instead of "rebuilding" Afghanistan, occupying another country we know not, fighting another of our creations, we need come home.
We need to rebuild America.
American, largely republican, Presidents have already:
Ushered in the 36 year rule of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Armed and funded the Afghans who changed their name to Taliban.
Armed Saddam Hussein, gave him satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Invaded and disastrously occupied Afghanistan.
Opened the Gates of Hell in the latest instalment of the US's 62 year Crusade of Folly, this one The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, giving Al Qaeda an opening there. The subsequent sectarian war, unseen in the modern Middle East, created the conditions that spawned ISIS.
62 years, trillions upon trillions of dollars wasted, millions of dead Afghans, Iranians and Iraqis, 7,000 dead, and counting, GI's and it keep getting worse, growing like a cancer in response to US mistakes, blunders and outright war crimes.
We need a President who will commit to getting out of the Middle East, forever. Instead of "rebuilding" Afghanistan, occupying another country we know not, fighting another of our creations, we need come home.
We need to rebuild America.
37
The ayatollahs came to power in Iran during the ill-fated presidency of Jimmy Carter. When the Soviet that invaded Afghanistan during Jimmy Carter's one and only term as president America felt obligated to arm the Afghan resistance. Osama bin Laden was our trusted ally back then and we gave him whatever he wanted so he could fight the Soviets for us. There is now a genuine nostalgia for the once despised strongmen like Saddam Hussein because they kept warring Islamic factions from slaughtering each other. Drones have replaced boots on the ground in the annals of modern warfare. I sure wish I had your crystal ball so we can rewrite history to your satisfaction.
1
ISIS is Suni. Iran is Shia. They don't get along. They are both enemies of the U.S.
When your enemy is engaged in killing your other enemy, don't intervene; just sit back and enjoy the view...
When your enemy is engaged in killing your other enemy, don't intervene; just sit back and enjoy the view...
8
I profoundly hope that Mr. Douthat's warnings do not prove prescient. ISIS is a scourge that must be eliminated, and I suspect that significant U.S. involvement will be required in this effort. As for the president's recent categorization of ISIS's recent gains as a "tactical setback", I fear that this assessment is overly sanguine.
3
I utterly and wholly agree with this poster.
But. AN, your peers generally seem to want NOTHING to do with any military action in the Levant other than the occasional resue operation, and many even spoke against those.
We need to decide as a nation how far we'll go given all the poosible situations. Clearly we can't be John McCains, but dare we be total non-interventionists?
Or will the IS show up on our streets and make the decision for us?
But. AN, your peers generally seem to want NOTHING to do with any military action in the Levant other than the occasional resue operation, and many even spoke against those.
We need to decide as a nation how far we'll go given all the poosible situations. Clearly we can't be John McCains, but dare we be total non-interventionists?
Or will the IS show up on our streets and make the decision for us?
1
ISIS is potent as a destroyer, not as a creator. They are unlikely to build a functioning empire.
But if ISIS topples the Saudi monarchy and blows up Saudi refineries, ports, and pipelines, it will have an impact on global economics that will be felt across the modern world. That is their strength; they are a force of destruction, like a tornado or a hurricane. ISIS has the potential to meddle with and mess up the current system of oil production and distribution in the Middle East.
Perhaps a saner strategy for the West would be one of building fortress-like protection for assets in the Middle East, not in playing whack-a-mole with chasing individual insurgents across the sand.
But if ISIS topples the Saudi monarchy and blows up Saudi refineries, ports, and pipelines, it will have an impact on global economics that will be felt across the modern world. That is their strength; they are a force of destruction, like a tornado or a hurricane. ISIS has the potential to meddle with and mess up the current system of oil production and distribution in the Middle East.
Perhaps a saner strategy for the West would be one of building fortress-like protection for assets in the Middle East, not in playing whack-a-mole with chasing individual insurgents across the sand.
12
Why is Douthat always so indirect? Why does he use such strange and oddly circular arguments to make his half-obscured points? Clearly, the point here is "we should finish the job." Yet, he won't even acknowledge that the mess in Iraq is entirely our doing. Instead, he creates a bogey man, and, drawing on the history of another country, ignores the relevant history of the county he writes about. In this case, I conclude that Douthat is one of those neo-cons that sent us to Iraq in the first place, but he is posing as an "intellectual" journalist.
177
Excellent point. He has always been an apologist for George W. Bush.
2
"We should finish the job." What, precisely, IS the job, and how DO we finish it? It's the $3 trillion question.
2
I guess it's just not possible to prevent Mr Douthat and his merry band of warriors trying to volunteer new generations of America's young men and women to spill their blood in futile gestures for dominance on foreign soils. The state of our nation is pretty grim at home. Maybe we would be better advised dedicating our efforts to trying to solve the problems caused by the previous generation of neo-Douthats. Have they never seen a war that wasn't worth spilling somebody else's blood for?
213
It suits Douthat's purposes to contend
A. That bolshevism was a messianic movement.
B. That right wing sunnism is a revolutionary movement, so that
C. Better be very scared of ISIS, so do something about it now, rather than regret Stalin later.
That makes three dumb falsehood theses proving Feith is not number one, but american consevatives got to make do with chicken scratch because facts don't get them where they want to be. Addressing the history, consequences, and remedies for their personalized war on false pretenses catastrophe just doesn't scratch that american conservative sulk that just itches like crazy. They needs to get back in their topic.
So, let us talk about commies instead. Aint we cute? See, from religious throwbacks to commies. Changed the issue to commies, liberals are radical leftists you know. Bet you didn't notice the switch.
A. That bolshevism was a messianic movement.
B. That right wing sunnism is a revolutionary movement, so that
C. Better be very scared of ISIS, so do something about it now, rather than regret Stalin later.
That makes three dumb falsehood theses proving Feith is not number one, but american consevatives got to make do with chicken scratch because facts don't get them where they want to be. Addressing the history, consequences, and remedies for their personalized war on false pretenses catastrophe just doesn't scratch that american conservative sulk that just itches like crazy. They needs to get back in their topic.
So, let us talk about commies instead. Aint we cute? See, from religious throwbacks to commies. Changed the issue to commies, liberals are radical leftists you know. Bet you didn't notice the switch.
54
He's a neocon and they require several things:
1) A mythology of American exceptionalism
2) An enemy to fight
3) War so they can consolidate their position of power.
4) Religiosity with which to control the masses.
5) Belief that Neocon elite are supermen and all other people are inferiors.
1) A mythology of American exceptionalism
2) An enemy to fight
3) War so they can consolidate their position of power.
4) Religiosity with which to control the masses.
5) Belief that Neocon elite are supermen and all other people are inferiors.
6
To Lenin & Trotsky, bolshevism was indeed a messianic movement and that aspect of it sold the initial everyday people who threw in with the mad dogs.
Only later was Red Russia being held together by the terroristic threat that they would quickly be killed if they even asked impertinent questions.
Only later was Red Russia being held together by the terroristic threat that they would quickly be killed if they even asked impertinent questions.
While we have the military and economic strength to intervene, the American people are tired of ISIS and there are many conflicts and dangers in the world. It is urgent that we not repeat the mistake of George W. Bush and waste our resources on unnecessary wars.
That being the case, the minimally interventionist policy of President Obama seems the only rational course. Needless to say, he has gotten flack from conservatives who believe that America should go to war at least once a year. George H. W. Bush received similar flack for his wise decision to withdraw from Iraq once our primary objective, freeing Kuwait, had been achieved. But if Vietnam and Iraq have taught us anything, it is that we should marshal our strength for when we really need it, and thoroughly understand the situation in a nation before we consider military intervention. In particular, as brutal as the Shah, Saddam, Qadafi, and Assad were, these states did not have a strong moderate democratic opposition, and when the dictators fell, what replaced them was worse. It is hard to stomach such monsters, but sadly, they are sometimes the best that can be had.
That being the case, the minimally interventionist policy of President Obama seems the only rational course. Needless to say, he has gotten flack from conservatives who believe that America should go to war at least once a year. George H. W. Bush received similar flack for his wise decision to withdraw from Iraq once our primary objective, freeing Kuwait, had been achieved. But if Vietnam and Iraq have taught us anything, it is that we should marshal our strength for when we really need it, and thoroughly understand the situation in a nation before we consider military intervention. In particular, as brutal as the Shah, Saddam, Qadafi, and Assad were, these states did not have a strong moderate democratic opposition, and when the dictators fell, what replaced them was worse. It is hard to stomach such monsters, but sadly, they are sometimes the best that can be had.
62
It is a reality that had Saddam stayed in power there would be no Daesh. The military regimes of the area, Assad included, have always claimed that if they were not there it would be worse. What if they are right? The USA has a strange delusion that the alternative to an imperfect world is always a better one. Others know this is not true.
3
Tom, yes, I think there *have* been times when we were successful at creating that better world -- Germany, Japan, and after a few generations, South Korea -- but I think we have been chronically naive in assuming that we could do this with every society at every stage of development and after war.
Ultimately, we're still a revolutionary country and we're still leading the world revolution as it gradually comes to adopt our democratic system. But for the most part, that's been accomplished by example and choice, not by conquest.
Ultimately, we're still a revolutionary country and we're still leading the world revolution as it gradually comes to adopt our democratic system. But for the most part, that's been accomplished by example and choice, not by conquest.
2
The comparison to the rise of the Bolsheviks indicates how little real history of the Russian revolution Doumit has. That one-party state devolved from a multi-party revolution from which the communist party emerged as the sole survivor. Its ability to survive defined its success.
What may be similar is the west's belief in its ability to control the situation. We have ousted Saddam, Gaddaffi and are attempting to oust Assad. We prevented Al Qaeda in Iraq from seizing power there. The Islamic State is just the most recent natural incarnation of whatever finally replaces them. The primary concern of the gulf states is with the Persian Shiite Iran and they will support whatever Sunni insurgencies they think will prevent the spread of Iran's influence into the Arab world. ISIS will likely fail, but something similar will replace it, just as ISIS has successfully taken advantage of the power voids we created with our earlier "successes".
ISIS exists only because of the combination of arrogance and incompetence that now characterizes the western ruling elite. Until that changes, we are going to continue to build our string of Pyrrhic victories.
What may be similar is the west's belief in its ability to control the situation. We have ousted Saddam, Gaddaffi and are attempting to oust Assad. We prevented Al Qaeda in Iraq from seizing power there. The Islamic State is just the most recent natural incarnation of whatever finally replaces them. The primary concern of the gulf states is with the Persian Shiite Iran and they will support whatever Sunni insurgencies they think will prevent the spread of Iran's influence into the Arab world. ISIS will likely fail, but something similar will replace it, just as ISIS has successfully taken advantage of the power voids we created with our earlier "successes".
ISIS exists only because of the combination of arrogance and incompetence that now characterizes the western ruling elite. Until that changes, we are going to continue to build our string of Pyrrhic victories.
86
"ISIS exists only because of the combination of arrogance and incompetence that now characterizes the western ruling elite." neglects the fact that the Saudis and fellow Sunni monarchs are the "ruling elite"in the region who have their hooks in our "ruling elite". Change here is difficult because the Uber elite have too much invested in hydrocarbons, defense, and share the same banks. What is refreshing is that to attentive people, as this group becomes more evident, their corrupt alliances become evident to all but the least informed.
Exploiting this "reveal" will enable a capable politician to shape the next iteration, unless the elite are willing to do what they did in WWI and set the world on fire.
Exploiting this "reveal" will enable a capable politician to shape the next iteration, unless the elite are willing to do what they did in WWI and set the world on fire.
Western incompetence didn't create ISIS any more than the east creates sunrises
Very good insight!
ISIS is small fry. The real threat is the Saudis buy nukes from Pakistan or North Korea.
11
"especially if the next American president commits fully to its destruction"
No American President is going to do that, no matter who is elected.
Our permanent security state now has other interests. It is definitely not interested in another long light infantry slog in the deserts of Iraq plus Syria.
It seeks to rebuild, "reset the force," not run it down with sand in the gears until it gets to a post-Vietnam state of wreckage.
The Republican fantasists had their run. It's over. Nobody is going to do that again.
No American President is going to do that, no matter who is elected.
Our permanent security state now has other interests. It is definitely not interested in another long light infantry slog in the deserts of Iraq plus Syria.
It seeks to rebuild, "reset the force," not run it down with sand in the gears until it gets to a post-Vietnam state of wreckage.
The Republican fantasists had their run. It's over. Nobody is going to do that again.
125
Ever the optimist! It seems to me entirely plausible that the next Republican president would. Even a Democratic president might have to, depending. And our military isn't in the state it was after Vietnam. It's the country that's tired of war, as it was after Vietnam, and leery of another quagmire.
17
"our military isn't in the state it was after Vietnam"
Not yet. If not reset, it will get there.
Men have done repeated tours in combat, five, six, seven each. PTSD is a widespread issue.
The equipment is worn from a decade in the sand.
The airplanes are old, and reaching their extended airframe hours.
The ships have missed refits, and run overlong. The only way to make them safe is to run short of carrier groups for years.
If we launch something new starting where we are now, the force will break before that long and nasty war is done.
Unless as an optimist, you expect a short victorious war with little further wear and tear.
Not yet. If not reset, it will get there.
Men have done repeated tours in combat, five, six, seven each. PTSD is a widespread issue.
The equipment is worn from a decade in the sand.
The airplanes are old, and reaching their extended airframe hours.
The ships have missed refits, and run overlong. The only way to make them safe is to run short of carrier groups for years.
If we launch something new starting where we are now, the force will break before that long and nasty war is done.
Unless as an optimist, you expect a short victorious war with little further wear and tear.
17
Most Americans never lifted a finger to fight Al Qaeda. They are not tired, they simply have no compelling interest in this particular fight.
1
Ross, let me suggest that the West's hole card in this struggle might turn out to be the nation that conservatives most want to bomb - Iran.
The Shiites of Iran will not cut and run, the way that the army that Uncle Sam put together in Iraq has cut and run - and neither likely will the Shiite militias of Iraq. They understand all too well that an ISIS victory could only mean their destruction.
The only practical way to defeat ISIS might be through an alliance between "moderate" Sunnis (a definition specifically intended to exclude our Wahhabi "allies" in Saudi Arabia, whose fanatical, puritanical ideology is responsible for this murder and mayhem) and the Shiites of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.
Instead of threatening to bomb Iran, the United States should be banging "moderate" Sunni heads together until they see the wisdom of allying with Iran, to fight the emerging darkness these Wahhabi mutants represent.
If the United States could make common cause with the Soviet Union in 1942, then moderate Sunni and Shiites can come together to crush the forces of Islamic barbarism.
The Shiites of Iran will not cut and run, the way that the army that Uncle Sam put together in Iraq has cut and run - and neither likely will the Shiite militias of Iraq. They understand all too well that an ISIS victory could only mean their destruction.
The only practical way to defeat ISIS might be through an alliance between "moderate" Sunnis (a definition specifically intended to exclude our Wahhabi "allies" in Saudi Arabia, whose fanatical, puritanical ideology is responsible for this murder and mayhem) and the Shiites of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.
Instead of threatening to bomb Iran, the United States should be banging "moderate" Sunni heads together until they see the wisdom of allying with Iran, to fight the emerging darkness these Wahhabi mutants represent.
If the United States could make common cause with the Soviet Union in 1942, then moderate Sunni and Shiites can come together to crush the forces of Islamic barbarism.
169
@Matthew Carnicelli: Good idea in theory but the mutual hatred between Sunnis and Shiites is long-standing and no less bitter than the one dividing Democrats and Republicans in this country. For my part, a more plausible joint effort to combat ISIS would involve moderate and secular Sunni Arabs and Kurds (most of whom are also Sunnis). Tell them they can have their own independent states in the territory spanning northern Iraq and eastern Syria and I suspect they'd be willing to take on ISIS even without Shiite involvement.
1
I agree with your premise. I see Iranian society with its well-educated youth moving moving to a more moderate place over time as the hard-liners die off. The US and Iran may be competitors on one level, as they both support more extremist proxies. But our two nations have more in common than the GOP and mass media will acknowledge. Let's hold up our end of the nuclear deal and keep working it. The Iranians are way more invested in seeing ISIS go down than the American taxpayers ever will be.
4
Who pays for the guns, bullets, uniforms, transportation, food, etc.? Who maintains the supply chain? Who are the sugar daddies?
ISIS was organized to be weak. Shut-off the money spigot and it dies.
ISIS was organized to be weak. Shut-off the money spigot and it dies.
1
With "ex-Baathists in its military leadership," is Islamic State more accurately seen as the amateur challenger to an entrenched regime, or is the picture more complicated, more like a rearrangement of elements, such as one might get from a turn of a kaleidoscope, with components of what makes up the mosaic becoming scrambled?
20
Ross, you're not too old to volunteer for the next American adventure in the Middle East.
Seriously, though, comparing ISIS with the Soviet Union is quite a stretch, don't you think?
As we pause from shopping and bar-b-cue this weekend to remember those who have fallen in all our wars, let us never forget the over twenty million Russians who died fighting Hitler.
Many on the left were duped into thinking Stalin was not the devil, and the left will always have that stain on its conscience; however, without the Red Army, all of us would be in a very different place today, or, like myself, in any place at all.
Seriously, though, comparing ISIS with the Soviet Union is quite a stretch, don't you think?
As we pause from shopping and bar-b-cue this weekend to remember those who have fallen in all our wars, let us never forget the over twenty million Russians who died fighting Hitler.
Many on the left were duped into thinking Stalin was not the devil, and the left will always have that stain on its conscience; however, without the Red Army, all of us would be in a very different place today, or, like myself, in any place at all.
215
Bravo to the Russians! They take a bad rap from American who constantly need bogeymen to feel superior over, but Russian have the hearts of lions and endless courage. There was no term of service in the Red Army, you served until you were killed or the war was won. At Stalingrad men boiled their belts and ate them, five men had one gun and each took it up as the other was shot. Americans who denigrate Russians really ought to spend more time in libraries.
4
The U.S. invasion of Iraq, the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country, dismantled the WW I colonial structure, replaced a tyrant, Hussein, with a vacuum that many powers, ISIS, the Shites, Kurds, et al, are vying to fill. It uncorked a relatively passive Iran. It's an unmitigated disaster with no end, made many factors worse by the presence of oil and the world's addiction to it.