And why? In reaction to the massacre in Orlando, George Friedman wonders what we’re doing:
It is now almost 15 years since 9/11 and we still have not answered the core questions: Are we at war or fighting criminals? And if we are at war, who with exactly? To distinguish between crime and war, you have to look at intent, not means. The means may be the same but the goal is different. Criminals pursue money or are unbalanced and pursue fantasies. Terrorists are pursuing political ends, and therefore, their attacks are consistent with the definition of war. War is a continuation of politics by different means. War is intimately bound up with politics. Crime is not. There are always gray areas, but this definition works.
What are the political ends of Islamist terrorists? Since the rise of al-Qaida, there has been a clear and consistent goal: to overthrow “hypocritical†Muslim states and replace them with jihadist regimes that would create a united global Muslim state called the caliphate.
To achieve this end, the jihadists need to do two things. The first is to demonstrate to the Muslim masses that they have been betrayed by their own governments, and that they have the power to seize control of their own destinies.
The second goal is to drive the United States, Europe and other non-Muslim powers out of the Islamic world. Terrorism is intended to drain the enemy of its will to continue and force withdrawal. This is the same goal of the mass bombings of World War II.
The two goals mesh, because terrorism does not require major organization or resources. It simultaneously strikes at the enemy, and empowers all its supporters who wish to be empowered.
Given this end, there is no question that terrorism is an act of war and not a crime. The problem is defining the enemy. We know that all Muslims are not jihadists. We also know that all jihadists are Muslims.
He continues by raising a point I’ve raised from time to time myself: the takfiri don’t conform to the Geneva Conventions and, consequently, have no rights under the Conventions. I think we’ve erred in sending captured jihadists to Guantanamo.
Shockingly, my prior beliefs are unchanged. Eliminating ISIS as a potential claimant to caliphate authority is important. We want people attracted to participating in a global jihad to have second thoughts as to its religious legitimacy. Take their religious views seriously, destroy their medieval fantasy and watch as the recriminations give rise to internal divisions. Allah must not have been on their side. This will not usher in an era of peace, and there may be a wack-the-mole aspect to it, but it is concrete goal which would lead us to a more acceptable level of violence. I also don’t think it will be that difficult.
Immigration policy in the heart of the middle east should be based upon our national security interests. We certainly should be giving safe harbor to those who stood up and aided the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly if they are facing threats for their assistance, but the case for increased or widescale immigration is not good at this point.
I’m not sure what we are doing about preventing those U.S. citizens who have joined ISIS from returning. I don’t find the story of Rasmea Odeh reassuring. (Palestinian terrorist though not involved in ISIS . . . so far) Why is someone who plants bombs in supermarkets walking around Chicago today? If we don’t have a lot of remedies against U.S. citizens (or as Andy suggested, even permanent residents), a lot of our best options are going to prevent that limitation from occurring to the best we can.
” I also don’t think it will be that difficult.”
That is what they said about Iraq. What would be different this time? My Tea Party buddies are saying we should invade and annihilate ISIS. It will be easy. It will be cheap. We can pay for it with the oil in Syria and Iraq. They will greet us as liberators….. Well, I heard all of those things before. We know how it turned out.
Steve
Progress being made. Ramadi in February. Fallujah ongoing. Mosul next.
PD- We have been at it for 2 years. We have the Russians, Iran, Syria, Kurds and the US fighting them. Seems pretty difficult to me. Regardless, the goal is to eliminate ISIS. I suspect that in another year or two we can take away most or all of their territory. That does not necessarily eliminate ISIS. They can simply fall back on a different narrative than the caliphate, such as the victimization of Sunni culture and religion by both outside influences (Russia, US) and by the Shia. This could, with ISIS in exile like AQ, leave ISIS promoting global jihadism even more forcefully.
Steve
That’s not completely accurate. First, you left out Iraq and Hezbollah. Second, we’re not all rowing in the same direction.
The U. S. is supporting the opposition of the Syrian government who in turn sometimes collaborate with DAESH. Syria, Russia, and Iran are all fighting the opposition of the Syrian government. From a priority standpoint they’ve been fighting groups other than DAESH more to date because they’re a more proximate threat. The Kurds are fighting to defend their homes. Where DAESH has attacked their homes, they fight DAESH. Where some other opposition group has attacked them, they fight them. That the Kurds will fight to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria (or Iraq) is very dubious.
Then there are the Turks. Basically, they’re on DAESH’s side but they’ll support any Islamists they can get. Unless the Islamists are Kurds.
Note that none of the parties including the U. S. has a primary objective of destroying DAESH.