Everything You Know About ISIS Is Probably Wrong

And me, too.

This piece – “What Isis Really Wants“, by Graeme Wood, in that noted conservative tool The Atlantic – explains ISIS in political, social and theological terms better than any single thing I’ve ever read.

It’s a long read, but a valuable, even vital one.

The entire piece is essential, it was almost pointless to pull out a quote. But in a nation that is tired of war, with significant antiwar political movements on the left and right, and with people from all political perspectives engaging in much wishful thinking about ISIS, I thought this was the essential bit:

We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.

One can neither reason with nor rationally deter an inbound kamikaze pilot.

I try to avoid the old blogger’s crutch “read the whole thing” – so when I say it, I mean it. By all means do.

Posted

February 18, 2015

Faiths And Their Followers, War And Peace, Western Civilization

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

35 responses to “Everything You Know About ISIS Is Probably Wrong”

nate

February 18, 2015

The Caliphate offers free health care? No wonder President Obama is intend on importing it to America.
Dog Gone

February 18, 2015

You probably won’t find accurate info on ISIL/ Daesh from your usual conservative sources.

They operate on an ‘end days’ theology that is strikingly similar to Christian ‘end days’ theology, in seeking the end of the world.

And the primary reason that they took as much territory in Iraq as they have is not that they present an attractive alternative, but that they presented the only alternative for the largely Sunni towns and villages. We let Malki and now his successor do things like bomb them, wrech whatever dirt-poor economy they had left, and generally reneged on promises we made to them in support of establishing a stable and inclusive democracy and nation.

No one is going to win with boots on the ground, and the real issue at hand is not the Daesh brutality, which is not sitting well with a lot of terrified people who have to go along with it now, in exchange for some stability, including relief from some of the corruption, and money from bootlegged oil and black market organ sales. What is necessary to undermine and eventually defeat Daesh is a better alternative.

And because WE screwed up, that alternative is going to have to come from someone else, because no one trusts us any more in that area – and properly so.

Thank the idiot neo-cons. Sadly, they haven’t learned the lessons of history from their last debacle.

If there is a silver lining to the dark cloud it is that like a magnet draws iron filings, we are to some degree centralizing the bad guys, incluidng luring the lone wolf scum out of other countries to join up. That offers threats and challenges, but also some unique opportunities to eradicate them once and for all that we would never see otherwise.
Mitch Berg

February 18, 2015
You probably won’t find accurate info on ISIL/ Daesh from your usual conservative sources.

Or, for that matter, “progressive” sources that toe the Administration’s and Institutional Left’s lines:
- They’re “not really Muslim
- They’re the “JV squad”
- This is just blowback for all those pesky Zionists
. But other than that, and this…

They operate on an ‘end days’ theology that is strikingly similar to Christian ‘end days’ theology, in seeking the end of the world.

…other than the fact that there is no significant political or military movement among such Christians, anywhere in the world, and that there has been no Millenarian Christian group that believed in physically murdering apostates for the past thousand years or so, you’re actually not as wrong as usual.

Oh, and except for this:
Thank the idiot neo-cons. Sadly, they haven’t learned the lessons of history from their last debacle.

This movement would have happened whenever a vacuum appeared in the Middle East; whether opened by a US invasion or an extended “Arab Spring” that left vacuums of secular power or “apostate” power (as in Syria – which, you may recall, nobody invaded, or in Libya, which was your guy’s deal).
Yossarian

February 18, 2015

Oh, jeez, DG reared her malformed head? That means six more weeks of her being stupid. Followed by six more weeks. And then six more weeks. And on and on into infinity.
jimf

February 18, 2015

DG “They operate on an ‘end days’ theology that is strikingly similar to Christian ‘end days’ theology, in seeking an end to the world.” Uh, no. The Christians you refer to weren’t seeking an end to the world- that would mean trying to help bring about the end to the world, what of course is totally different than just predicting when it might happen. But how typical of you not to notice. But, speaking of ‘end days’, the Christians you refer to don’t even come close to that foolishness as the global warming/climate change/severe weather events crowd.
Emery

February 18, 2015

Jihadism and other nihilistic or anarchic movements blossoms wherever young men are idle and unable to secure the necessary means for marriage. I guarantee you that at least 90% of Jihadis would have chosen a job and a wife over Jihad if that option had been available to them. As such the terrible economic state of the Arab world is much to blame; Muslims in India and Indonesia find it much easier to make a living and wed. Nobody hates a government as much as a young, capable worker forced to live off of its charity.
Powhatan Mingo

February 18, 2015

This sentence of DG’s is the most important one:
“And because WE screwed up”
Notice that she emphasized the word “we” by capitalizing it.
Dog Gone does not believe, for a second, that she “WE” screwed up. She believes that “THEY” screwed up of that “YOU” screwed up.
Powhatan Mingo

February 18, 2015

“Jihadism and other nihilistic or anarchic movements blossoms wherever young men are idle and unable to secure the necessary means for marriage.”
As far as this statement of Emery’s is true, it is a trivial truth, like saying “All nations send young men to fight and die in battle while the generals remain safely in the rear”.
It implies causality without demonstrating causality. There are many, many cases where jobless, single young men do not engage in terrorism. the young ment who destroyed the twin towers on 9/11 did not fall into this category. They certainly considered themselves jihadists.
Bill Ayres, the president’s murderous, terrorist pal, came from an upper middle class family, and he had his choice of women.
You can’t explain evil as a product of social conditions.
Evil does, however, explain social conditions.
Emery

February 19, 2015

You’re heading off in several directions here, but let me focus on one. I would argue that a generous welfare system, with plenty of young men unemployed (or ‘disabled’), is a breeding ground for extremism. Idle hands are the devils tools, if you’ll forgive a Christian sentiment. A young man with a welfare check may be clothed and fed, but he’s going nowhere, particularly if he’s part of a culture that discourages marriage by men without means.

How best do we defend the ideals and practice of Western secular liberal capitalism? I don’t think Islamic terrorism is a real threat; more a reminder that our values aren’t free. We win simply by continuing to live as before. Fighting ISIS isn’t worth it. They’ll self-destruct in a decade or less if left alone in charge of any sizable population; fight them, and they’ll still last a decade, and our choice of allies in a fight is deeply unsavory.

So what, in practice, do you do? The politicians are hoping that the great majority of Muslims will recoil from this Islamic terrorism, and stop their tacit support for it. You can criticize that approach as passive and timid, but short of giving up on liberal democracy and instituting a police state, how else are you going to win except by winning hearts and minds?

And keep some perspective. Many more people died of automobile accidents in Denmark this week than terrorism; nobody’s banning cars.
Mitch Berg

February 19, 2015

Many more people died of automobile accidents in Denmark this week than terrorism

And then let’s make sure we’re talking the right perspective: many more Coptic Egyptians died of beheading in Libya than from car accidents this week.

More Kurds, Shi’a and Yazidi died from being shot, cut up and burned to death than from car accidents this past week.

More Nigerians have died from being shot, hacked to pieced or burned to death this past year that Americans died of car accidents.

There. Now you have perspective.

You can criticize that approach as passive and timid

That, OTOH, is not a bad question. No, I don’t criticize it – but it’s one front of a much larger conflict.

And I chide conservative who think “letting Egypt and Jordan do the work” is wrong; it’s precisely right. That’s what “proxies” are for.
kel

February 19, 2015

if as they promise ISIS comes for Rome that means NATO – It’ll be fun to watch Dear Leader try, with an executive order, to dismantle NATO in the last 500 days of his reign.
Emery

February 19, 2015

MBerg: I was referring to terrorist acts outside of North Africa and the Middle East. You on the other hand appear to be referring to so-called ‘war zones’ in North Africa and the Middle East.
Powhatan Mingo

February 19, 2015

” Many more people died of automobile accidents in Denmark this week than terrorism; nobody’s banning cars.”
Strangely enough, the people who compare apples to oranges like this rarely bring up the fact that the US loses more people in auto accidents in week than it has executed death row inmates in a decade. Similarly, more Americans are killed in auto accidents in one week than were killed in the Iraq War.
When you approach an argument from the wrong direction, you can’t see it clearly.
justplainangry

February 19, 2015

EmeryTheUSAHater is Harfing. Jobs for Terrorists! Effing soci@list goon…
Joe Doakes

February 19, 2015

It’s posts like that one, Dog Gone, that give me hope for you.

Would you mind elaborating a bit? If the bad guys are bunched up to be killed but the USA can’t do it, who do you see doing it? Russia? And will it be good for America to have the Russians ruling the Middle East or should we start gearing up for war with them?

I’m seriously asking, no snark or sarcasm intended, what do you think should happen over there?
.
swiftee

February 19, 2015

DG: ISIL/ Daesh is recruiting comfort women for the jihadis. White, middle aged and dumb as a stump preferred. A willingness to work with animals is a bonus.

It’s your time honey.
bikebubba

February 19, 2015

Regarding the claim that people would always choose jobs of Jihad, it’s worth noting that Osama Bin Laden comes from a family that runs one of the biggest construction firms in Saudi Arabia. To argue that he couldn’t get jobs for himself and a bunch of his buddies just boggles the mind.

And gotta love DG; people point, correctly, at a number of imbecilic comments out of the White House, and she barks “but look, bloggers!” as if we ought to hold both to an identical standard. It is as if she believes that the rantings of Bucky Underpants in Bemidji are just as significant to our society as the rantings of Marie Harf on behalf of the White House.
Emery

February 19, 2015

“When you approach an argument from the wrong direction, you can’t see it clearly.”

I agree. Although no one seemed to notice that gun enthusiasts on this site often make the same comparison when comparing stats regarding gun violence.
nate

February 19, 2015

“stats on gun violence.” Good to see another person climbing aboard the Bloomberg/KKK wagon.
Emery

February 19, 2015

But be very careful when you start herding people into groups. Individual rights are at the heart of liberal democracy. You seem too prepared to abandon liberalism in your defense of liberalism.
Powhatan Mingo

February 19, 2015

“I agree. Although no one seemed to notice that gun enthusiasts on this site often make the same comparison when comparing stats regarding gun violence.”
What comparison, Emery? Gun deaths to car deaths? Gun deaths to people on death row?
Usually, 2nd amendment types are busy debunking deceptive stats from the other side — counting seventeen year old gang-bangers murdered in a drug deal as child gun deaths, or referring to nineteen year old murder victims as a ‘teens’ rather than as adults. They also like to lump suicides into the ‘gun deaths’ category. This is deceptive because you can assume that w/o access to a gun, a significant number of those suicides would have occurred anyway.
Powhatan Mingo

February 19, 2015

“You seem too prepared to abandon liberalism in your defense of liberalism.”
CC Bloomberg on that, please.
I have never heard any pro armed self defense person say that any minority group or age cohort (other than non-adults) should be forbidden to own firearms. It’s liberals that don’t recognize the rights of individuals, not conservatives.
Emery

February 19, 2015

Whenever I hear a solution which in essence is the majority suppressing the differing ideas of a minority, I get uncomfortable. I don’t believe you can defend liberalism by throwing out liberalism.
Powhatan Mingo

February 19, 2015

I seem to need to say this once awhile.
The reason only 2,606 people were killed in the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 wasn’t because the terrorists decided to limit the casualties, or because that is the upper limit on how many people could have been killed. “Only” 2606 were killed because the logistics of the attack required that the towers be hit early in the day, when the towers were only partially occupied. They would have killed everyone in NYC if they could have. They would have used a nuke, if they had had one.
Comparing the number of terrorist casualties per year with the number of murder victims or car accident victims is a fool’s work. You won’t see the number of murder or car accident deaths double or triple in a year, but there are people working very, very hard to increase the number of terrorist victims a thousand fold. Sheesh.
Emery

February 19, 2015

And your solution is?
Emery

February 19, 2015

What’s the practical solution? Ban all Muslim immigrants? They’ll say they aren’t. Ban all immigrants from certain countries? They’ll say they’re from somewhere else. Ban all immigrants except those from rich, non-Muslim countries? What about refugees from religious violence? This is all very hard in practice and awfully illiberal.

What about the millions of Muslims already in Europe? If you stopped all immigration today, Muslims would make up a large and growing minority. What, in practice, can you do about them? It’s impractical to send them back, even assuming you know where ‘back’ is. You can’t stop people worshipping in the name of free speech, because worship is a form of free speech.
Powhatan Mingo

February 20, 2015

“And your solution is?”
The first step is to quit comparing terrorist attacks meant to, or hoped to, kill thousands or millions of Americans, and cripple or destroy the ability of the United States to influence foreign events to frikkin’ random car accidents.
It is stupid. There is no other word for it.
Most liberals can never quite get past the first step. Taking life seriously is hard.
Emery

February 20, 2015

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, it’s all good and well that you are tolerant, but you can’t be tolerant to the point where your brain starts falling out.

We’re Birkie (American Birkebeiner) bound! Have a great weekend!
justplainangry

February 20, 2015

EmeryTHEUSAHater solution: Sing Kumbaya! That will make them change their minds! No more terror aspirations and pink unicorns for everyone! That, and submit to Sharia. Effing soci@list dhimmi! Next thing he’ll point to Cordoba to say how nice and peaceful it was!
bikebubba

February 20, 2015

Enjoy the Birkie, Emery. Regarding what to do about jihadis, they could do what they do for every native born air traveler before he gets a ticket. Run a quick background check, and an enhanced one for nations that have provided a lot of jihadis, before issuing a visa to the U.S. Then you start deporting people and revoking visas and even citizenship for actions that make terrorist ties indisputable. Get a few Somalis going back to join the war? Get a warrant and start investigating, including putting a wiretap in their mosque. Palestinians using sugar to make rockets? Sorry, but life will suck if you’re a Palestinian with a sweet tooth until the bombardment stops.

Really, when one takes a good look at the history of terrorism, one does not find that many actual surprises, but rather a litany of missed opportunities to defuse it.
Powhatan Mingo

February 20, 2015

Bikebubba, there is a problem with accountability. 9/11 should be looked at as institutional failure. Multiple levels of the federal government failed to do job #1 — protect the people it is privileged to serve. Saudi nationals were allowed to learn to fly US planes so they could crash them into buildings. Do you know who lost his or her job over that? I don’t.
bikebubba

February 20, 2015

You could fill out thousands of 8D forms with the failures we’ve seen in this regard, really. And we ought to keep in mind that when one is correcting a failure, job #1 is to examine the overall quality system to see if people have the incentives and tools they need to do their job, not fire people. Does the way they do their job effect their promotion path, for example?

And along the same lines, I think the “hosts” to these parasites (the terrorists, not bureaucrats this time need to have the same thing applied. What can we do which will automatically make supporting terrorism a losing approach? Cutting off sugar to kids in Gaza would sadly make a lot of sense.
Powhatan Mingo

February 20, 2015

Bikebubba, a few days ago I heard a fellow say that there is a demand and supply problem with terrorists. There is a political demand for right wing, Christian terrorists but very little supply. On the other hand, there is no demand for Islamic terrorists, but a large supply.
Enter DHS, who has released a study showing that right wing ‘sovereign citizens’ in the US are an equal or greater threat than Muslim terrorists!
The study is crap, but of course CNN bought it hook, line and sinker. At one point CNN got confirmation from the charlatans at the Southern Poverty Law Center that were 300,000 potential terrorist “sovereign citizens” in the US, with a core group of maybe 100,000.
Of course the CNN didn’t ask the SPLC where he got those numbers. The spoke drone simply made them up, I suppose. If the SPLC has learned one thing over the years (other than how to extract money from NYC Jewish groups) it is that no MSM ‘journalist’ will ever question anything they say.
I Heard It On The NARN | Shot in the Dark

February 21, 2015

[…] my piece about Graeme Wood’s article about ISIS. This entry was posted in NARN by Mitch Berg. Bookmark the […]
bikebubba

February 23, 2015

Now come on, Powhatan. The DHS has documented 24 incidence since 2010 for a grand total of about five incidents per year with maybe ….ten deaths. It’s almost as many innocent people as ISIS kills in a typical…. day……