Reuters/Stringer
Why ISIL Is Worse Than al-Qaeda—And Any Other Terrorist Group That Came Before -- Bobby Ghosh, Quartz
Now the world has finally turned its attention to the carnage sweeping through northern Iraq, many are struggling to place the perpetrators—the death cult known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL—in the context of modern-day terrorism. I’m getting the same questions from friends and fellow journalists: Are these guys the new al-Qaeda? Or are they like the Taliban? Or is this movement more like Hezbollah… Boko Haram… Hamas?
Led by the self-appointed “Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIL is both generic and sui generis. Its rhetoric sounds familiar, because it is delivered in the language (literally and metaphorically) of most Islamist militant groups. There’s much talk about jihad—the modern, malign interpretation of that word, rather than its spiritual meaning—and the desire to attain “martyrdom.” Some of ISIL’s tactics are familiar, too, like the use of suicide bombings, and snuff videos posted online.
Read more ....
My Comment: It looks like Osama Bin Laden is also in agreement with this assessment.
3 comments:
ISIS is a grave threat to modern civilization across the whole planet. It is, as the article says, more virulent than any other Islamic extremists. The very intensity of ISIS makes it both extremely dangerous and, I think, brittle and perhaps vulnerable.
1. ISIS is, in effect, Islam on steroids, Islam taken to its logical conclusion. ISIS' quest for absolute religious purity is attractive for some devout Moslems.
2. Yet ISIS' vision of minimally acceptable Islamic practices is so rigid and narrow, that, in effect, most people (even devout Moslems) can't or won't perform them. I think that very few people would freely choose to live in the Islamic State.
3. ISIS' response to any resistance is savage terror: be-headings, crucifixions, slavery, etc. I doubt that anyone alive can surpass ISIS' barbarism, brutality and cruelty.
4. ISIS' principal support comes from two groups:
(a) relatively few religious zealots, mainly young men. For zealots, the joy of living under extreme Islam is worth the violence to sustain it; and
(b) relatively few sociopaths and criminals, also mainly young men. For this group, the joy of killing and maiming is worth the price of living under ISIS' harsh version of Islam. This group is in it for the violence.
Both groups enjoy the money and guns ISIS gives them, and the loot they steal from Christians and others. I suspect that both groups are unemployable in any civilized country.
Note well that ISIS does not draw support from ordinary people trying to make a living. Terror can cow a population into submission, but terror alone cannot instill genuine loyalty.
5. ISIS has been on a roll. For ISIS' soldiers, it is fun to wage war when you easily win and can focus your energy on terrorizing people. Moreover, at least some of ISIS' strength is their seeming invincibility and inevitability.
6. For ISIS' warriors, it will be less fun when they are defeated. Any significant ISIS defeat will puncture their aura of invincibility, which will also strengthen their opponents.
7. ISIS has no allies. ISIS truly rejects everything that has happened on planet Earth since approximately 700 AD, and wants to return to those golden years by force. Few people, even devout Moslems, want that. No nation state really supports the caliphate. Even the Saudis financing ISIS hope to divert ISIS into attacking Shiites; I doubt that many Saudis would want ISIS to rule them.
8. Sooner or later, ISIS will sustain a significant defeat. When that happens, I wonder how resilient the Islamic State will prove to be. The article compares ISIS to the Khmer Rouge. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, the Khmer regime swiftly collapsed, because it had little support among the ordinary people.
I concur with your analysis Publius. ISIS is a huge threat, but its to radical that its own views is the thing that in long term will lead to its defeat.
5 and 6, I think are really correct. They haven't been smashed in the mouth yet. The brittle part is right on the money. If they sustain a big enough defeat they'll have no where to run or regroup and run they will.
Needless to say I agree with everything above. I'll add that I think ISIS is over extended, probably a little disorganized and ripe for counter attack.
In 700AD the Byzantine and Persian empires were completely worn out from a long military struggle. They were also at the end of their vigor and were riddled with entire peoples ready to try anything or anyone new. With the exception of some ME countries that is not the case today. I think ISIS is close to the boundaries of possible expansion.
Post a Comment