Thought this deserved its own thread. TO READ ENTIRE Article click link at end of Post. I can't post the entire article here. What ISIS Really Wants 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. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it. What is the Islamic State? Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors. Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. 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. The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million. I. Devotion In November, the Islamic State released an infomercial-like video tracing its origins to bin Laden. It acknowledged Abu Musa’b al Zarqawi, the brutal head of al‑Qaeda in Iraq from roughly 2003 until his killing in 2006, as a more immediate progenitor, followed sequentially by two other guerrilla leaders before Baghdadi, the caliph. Notably unmentioned: bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, the owlish Egyptian eye surgeon who currently heads al‑Qaeda. Zawahiri has not pledged allegiance to Baghdadi, and he is increasingly hated by his fellow jihadists. His isolation is not helped by his lack of charisma; in videos he comes across as squinty and annoyed. But the split between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State has been long in the making, and begins to explain, at least in part, the outsize bloodlust of the latter. The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.(READ more in Article) II. Territory Tens of thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to the Islamic State. Recruits hail from France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Australia, Indonesia, the United States, and many other places. Many have come to fight, and many intend to die. Peter R. Neumann, a professor at King's College London, told me that online voices have been essential to spreading propaganda and ensuring that newcomers know what to believe. Online recruitment has also widened the demographics of the jihadist community, by allowing conservative Muslim women—physically isolated in their homes—to reach out to recruiters, radicalize, and arrange passage to Syria. Through its appeals to both genders, the Islamic State hopes to build a complete society. III. The Apocalypse All Muslims acknowledge that God is the only one who knows the future. But they also agree that he has offered us a peek at it, in the Koran and in narrations of the Prophet. The Islamic State differs from nearly every other current jihadist movement in believing that it is written into God’s script as a central character. It is in this casting that the Islamic State is most boldly distinctive from its predecessors, and clearest in the religious nature of its mission. The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who “Rome” is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely. After mujahideen reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts upon the arrival of the first guests at a party. IV. The Fight The ideological purity of the Islamic State has one compensating virtue: it allows us to predict some of the group’s actions. Osama bin Laden was seldom predictable. He ended his first television interview cryptically. CNN’s Peter Arnett asked him, “What are your future plans?” Bin Laden replied, “You’ll see them and hear about them in the media, God willing.” By contrast, the Islamic State boasts openly about its plans—not all of them, but enough so that by listening carefully, we can deduce how it intends to govern and expand. Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it appears the best of bad military options. If we had identified the Islamic State’s intentions early, and realized that the vacuum in Syria and Iraq would give it ample space to carry them out, we might, at a minimum, have pushed Iraq to harden its border with Syria and preemptively make deals with its Sunnis. That would at least have avoided the electrifying propaganda effect created by the declaration of a caliphate just after the conquest of Iraq’s third-largest city. Yet, just over a year ago, Obama told The New Yorker that he considered ISIS to be al-Qaeda’s weaker partner. “If a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” the president said. Our failure to appreciate the split between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the essential differences between the two, has led to dangerous decisions. Last fall, to take one example, the U.S. government consented to a desperate plan to save Peter Kassig’s life. The plan facilitated—indeed, required—the interaction of some of the founding figures of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and could hardly have looked more hastily improvised. It entailed the enlistment of Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, the Zarqawi mentor and al-Qaeda grandee, to approach Turki al-Binali, the Islamic State’s chief ideologue and a former student of Maqdisi’s, even though the two men had fallen out due to Maqdisi’s criticism of the Islamic State. Maqdisi had already called for the state to extend mercy to Alan Henning, the British cabbie who had entered Syria to deliver aid to children. In December, The Guardian reported that the U.S. government, through an intermediary, had asked Maqdisi to intercede with the Islamic State on Kassig’s behalf. Maqdisi was living freely in Jordan, but had been banned from communicating with terrorists abroad, and was being monitored closely. After Jordan granted the United States permission to reintroduce Maqdisi to Binali, Maqdisi bought a phone with American money and was allowed to correspond merrily with his former student for a few days, before the Jordanian government stopped the chats and used them as a pretext to jail Maqdisi. Kassig’s severed head appeared in the Dabiq video a few days later. V. Dissuasion It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them. Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy. A theological alternative to the Islamic State exists—just as uncompromising, but with opposite conclusions. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ (Read the Full Article here)
I don't have time to read this ideological bullshit, they can suck on their brother's hairy bush balls...What we all really want is the exterminator to get rid of this aggressive pest problem.
basically that's what they want. Not to be totally defeated but for other nations to join in that one area of the world to have a fight. They think they are the chosen ones to help the end days prophecies come true. So far their plan is working as other nations are coming together to help defeat them. If not the "end days" this could be another long ass war that we cant afford to be in.
We have to remember, ISIS is aligning itself to make massive gains if western nations decide to intervene. They and their supporters want boots on the ground. We may talk big about bombing them to kingdom come, annihilating their villages, and eradicating both soldiers and their families to thoroughly "cleanse" the world of their bloodline. But this kind of response will make them stronger in numbers and justify their existence as soldiers fighting the invading western "empires". The solution has to come from local nations that are occupied by or adjacent to ISIS controlled regions. Without their desire to see ISIS wiped from existence, foreign intervention will only be a temporary solution, and when the western forces leave, an even bloodier fanatical group will take ISIS' place.
They are seriously over estimating themselves in that regard. I read the article, thanks for posting but no real surprise. The only difference between them and other extremist groups in this region over the years is their usage of social media, so we in the west see their brutality where as we didn't with the other groups. The Taliban/Al Qaeda were both just as brutal though. When the Taliban was running through Afganistan they were just as fuckin nasty as these guys. They would go from village to village, drag the men out of their homes and into the streets. If they didn't join their cause they would gut them right there in the street in front of the women and children. and on to the next village.. until they ran the entire country. (they just didn't film it and put it on you tube for the world to see) The part about them being overenthusiastic to fight reminds me of the great 2009 Book "Horse Soldiers" which tells the battle of Mazar-i-Sharif in Afganistan in the very, very immediate aftermath of 9/11. Before we started a full invasion we sent in Army special forces to fight alongside the Taliban resistance. They were able to get the Taliban leaders of that area on the radio, that's how overly confident they were. They too were overjoyed to fight when they heard the U.S. was involved and seriously underestimated what that meant. (talking shit) - - What resulted was a fight like the modern day equivalent of one side throwing spears (taliban) and the other with rifles. The Special Forces ripped through them like a knife in butter. The difference though, and why we were engaged in such a long war after that was the brutal Afganistan terrain. They hid in the mountains which were difficult just to fly too, they planted IEDs in the only paths to get to them, etc. These ISIS fucks won't have that advantage. They are stuck in the desert, out in the open, and very susceptible to drone attack. They have less infrastructure themselves. Also - Obama isn't really THAT wrong when he calls them "a JV team". It is true from the regard that they are small potatoes compared to what the Taliban was pre-2001, the influence Al Qaeda had, politically/financially etc in their heyday. These guys are also much more stupid than the leaders of those groups in that they aren't gaining any friends in the region. They are just chaotic warlords with an overly inflated ego. Nobody wants a full scale invasion because we are war weary and tired of picking up the pieces afterwards but it would be no contest with these guys. in that regard their ideology, "what they really want" does not matter at all because if they want to create the "end of days" the only real one they will create is their own "end of days".
How do they acquire weapons? Who trades oil with them? How are they able to recruit in places like the EU and USA? Why do EU or USA allow return of foreign fighters? Why is the media giving them so much exposure/free advertising? Drone away, bombs away; but no boots on the ground; let EU and Middle Eastern Nations take the lead. USA should have never went to Iraq, but once we did we should have never left. Only nation in the region we should supply weapons to is Israel. Stop supplying weapons to Middle Eastern "allies", and ISIS will have no means to cause destruction. ISIS, currently, poses little threat to continental United States; they have no ships or jets. The major issues facing our nation are in the far east and namely Russia; which is currently advancing on a western offensive.
haven't looked it up but seen on the news ticker this morning that they are reportedly selling organs to make money. Also, the U.S will begin selling drones to its allies.. Awesome stuff.
Don't believe any single source that you read about any topic at all. Analysis is only useful in the aggregate at this point because the web has become an amplifying force that allows propaganda to be spread easily and without any real governor over its veracity or lack thereof. In the pre-internet era most of the stuff you read now would have been printed in leaflets and small pamphlets and then circulated among very few readers, most of whom already believed what was being presented to them. Don't believe anything until you've gotten the chance to sample a wide range of information on the topic. What ISIS really wants is a topic so broad that any single piece of analysis, even drawing from several sources, is likely to be right on some points and wrong on others. Then there will be the pieces that have a simple agenda to put forward and aren't remotely interested in what ISIS really wants. All those simple pieces will be looking to sell their viewpoint and create their own "facts" in the process. The politician I miss the most as I grow older is Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I wish I had appreciated him as much when I was younger as I do now.
War is a big business that USA supports. Evidently ISIS also supports the business. Somehow they are acquiring weapons. Seems like that should be a pretty easy case to crack, and quickest way to block necessary means for war. I'm pretty sure rifle serial numbers will tell you all you need to know about the makers. ISIS is gaining recruitment. Interest is lead by the media, but how do they recruit in EU and USA? Seems like recruitment should be pretty easy to block in the EU and USA. Foreign fighters allowed to return? That's just crazy; and a direct threat to citizen lives in EU and USA. Regardless, of all above. The biggest threat to the United States, but even more so EU, is currently the nation of Russia. Russia is flexing muscle and ignoring all international law. They are advancing forces west; capturing and securing large swaths of land. EU balks and balks. Russia is a danger to the West. At this point it is time for EU or USA (preferably EU) to start supplying weapons to Ukraine. ...and all the while China and Japan are growing militarily. ISIS is small potatoes
What are the ISIS miltants using as their main assault weapons? AK-47's? Is there any way to independently verify what their choice of weaponry is and how it is being supplied to them? AK-47's are the third world weapon of choice for militants and bad guys all over the place, because they're cheap and easy to maintain with a big secondary market for the necessary parts and ammo.
The biggest threat to the US by leaps and bounds is losing most favored nation status in the international economy and having the dollar no longer used as the world's reserve currency. If that happens the game changes immediately and we can't pay our debts and we can't maintain our economic standing and the pitchforks come out all over the place politically speaking. Every conflict that we get dragged into advances that process exponentially. The Russians and Chinese would love to see the US at war all over the place hemorrhaging wealth each time we get sucked in.
World economic policies are fragile and could very well lead to "disaster" for USA. I just don't see the western world adopting either Russia or China as 'most favored nation status'. Pop culture loves USA, the greater populace of the world is enamored with USA. Russia and China lack civil freedoms to make them most appealing. I just have a hard time seeing that kind of change in near future. USA also happens to be 'energy' rich, which seems to hold far more value than money.
Small arms are a problem, but it's the heavy weapons; artillery, mortars, rockets; methods of transportation, armor, troop carrier trucks, humvees, automobiles... Should be able to track the source of certain equipment necessary for sustaining a war effort. Media focuses on Isis fear tactics rather than using the stories to exploit a source/enabler for the fear. How does an army sustain without a weapons supplier, clothing supplier, food supplier, energy supplier? Someone must know who is supplying/supporting Isis. Isis must have some "friends" supporting their undertaking
How is this at all useful?! Yes, everyone who has ever written anything, dating back before Joe Neanderthal scribbled a stick figure with boobs on a goddamn rock wall, has offered only ONE point of view. That's how it works. So, how about addressing this one point, instead of getting all wistful and misty about DPM? Assuming you didn't bother reading the article to catch the central premise (which wasn't published by NRO or The Weekly Standard, by the way), here it is: The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. I'd welcome any well-researched rebuttals could post. So we can, y'know, do the sort of comprehensive analysis you (correctly) suggest.
If ISIS was very Islamic they wouldn't be committing widespread atrocities across the region. What they are is very psychopathic. The article essentially did a wonderful job of trying to link Islam and Psychopaths. That was it's intent.
Everything they're using, all the heavy weapons- weren't they looted from the Iraqis when that army "disappeared" as ISIS approached? So I imagine it's all high-quality US made weaponry.
This is true, but it can't be nearly enough equipment and supplies to sustain a multiple front offensive. These guys are getting help somewhere
