Eight things I think about the Islamic State

ISIL or The Islamic State formerly known as ISIL or the "Guys who keep pretentiously changing their name the way Prince used to do" as I like to call them has gotten pretty much everybody's panties in a bunch and I don't understand why.  According to the breathless blow dried blatherers on cable news they are set to sweep through the Middle East as if they were Mohammed's army in all its seventh century glory and absent a "hair on fire" aggressive response "all is lost, doom! doom! doom!" or something to that effect. I'm not buying it and here's why:

1. The IS conquered the parts of Syria and Iraq that are Sunni. Given that they are a Sunni extremist organization manned by Sunnis largely from...Syria and Iraq, what they have in effect done is conquer their moms 'n dads, siblings and cousins who unsurprisingly welcomed them with open arms (although the Iraqi "America, whiskey, sexy" demographic isn't too happy right now).  It's little like the Marines conquering South Carolina - who could tell the difference?

2. They've conquered mostly empty desert with a few provincial cities in it.  They control no major city (they're fighting for control of Mosul as we speak).  This matters because if IS to be a real threat to the region it needs access to money, weapons and recruits in large numbers as well as needing to ensure that its heartland remains well fed and watered. In other words it needs to do what every Islamist group has tried and failed to do:  actually govern in 'liberated' IS areas.   If they can't create governing institutions to cement their power then they will fade away.

3. They've got control of very little of Iraq's oil production and don't have anywhere they can sell what they have.  Again, without an independent source of money to fund their war and governance they are at the mercy of their Gulf funders who can and no doubt at this very minute are being gotten to.  And I don't care how swell and "independent" the Qataris think they are, when the chips are down the 'powerful' military defending Quatar's 278,000 citizens are no match for a weaponized American boy scout troop, much less the US military. Heck, they're not even a match for the 1.7 million non citizen residents of Qatar who probably aren't overfond of 'non Arab, non Sunni' head hackage and if push came to shove could easily turn the Land of Gaseous Bedouins into the westernmost province of India.

4. We forget that the IS are the ones who are surrounded.  To the north are the very determined Kurds who hate them, to the east,  tens of millions of Shia Iraqis who hate them and beyond them 75 million Iranian Shia who hate them. To the west, lies the Syrian Army and other factions from religious minorities who all really, really hate them. To the southwest lies Israel who doesn't even need to hate them to put them in a world of hurt.  Many of these countries are armed and backed by the US, the world's super power who is contributing air forces and increasing supplies of weapons, advisers and surveillance intel to the containment effort. A US where even the liberal press is getting pissed at the absolutely brilliant head hackings that the IS PR bureau has been putting out - way to go Ahmed! The ones that aren't have Russia for a weapons daddy.  And while the Gulf States may not technically 'hate' them they sure as hell don't want them to show up in the 'hood with their "Sunni disposition" lest it queer their real estate development plans.

5. They could not beat the minority dominated Syrian Army.  One way to interpret the IS strategy is that they invaded Sunni Iraq because they couldn't achieve what has been every Islamist's preferred objective for a very long time: taking over a viable functioning Arab state - Syria in this case. In essence they are in Iraq because they are too weak to win against states with even semi-competent and loyal armies.

6. They are pursuing a strategy that cannot lead to regional hegemony.  The northern Middle East is a crazy quilt of religious and ethnic minorities not to mention half Iranian. IS kicked off their campaign by murdering thousands of.....religious and ethnic minorities and imposing draconian Sunni Sharia. Thus the great majority of the people that surround them hate and fear them for very good and fundamental reasons.  A leader seeking to rally the Ummah into supporting the reestablishment of the Caliphate and launch a global Jihad needs to run a broad church - at least until he wins all.  Splitting factional hairs much less severing minority heads is no way to build enthusiasm and support for your program.

7. It appears that IS is led by true religious fanatics who believe that so long as they are faithful and murder enough heretics that Allah will ensure their victory.  They remind me of the Mahdists of the Sudan at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.  Back then they were a big deal - considered by bien pensant opinion to be a threat to British domination of the Nile valley and its hinterlands. Like the IS they murdered westerners and minorities, quickly conquered a bunch of rather empty desert and scrub and defeated a poorly armed, badly led rescue mission.  Yet the Mahdists didn't survive their first encounter with pissed off Anglo Saxons armed with Maxim guns.

8. I suppose they could send terrorists to attack the west. But so could Al Qaeda and oddly enough with the exception of September 11, they haven't been able to do much of anything meaningful. So why is IS which appears to be even more isolated, blinkered and provincial going to succeed?

I believe that the west and particularly the United States made a mistake getting so intimately involved in the Middle East.  The region is going through what is in essence the Islamic wars of Reformation.  The Middle East and Central Asia are ground zero for a battle over Muslim identity and what Islam dictates and what it should tolerate.  The Christian wars of reformation lasted 150 years and these will too.  By being too deeply invested we end up as part of the story whether we like it or not.  We don't 'suffer an embarrassing defeat' when Islamists wreck Chad because as special as Chad is to the Chadians, it's a nothingburger to us.  By over focusing and obsessing on the Middle East we've inadvertently put ourselves in a position where any time any damn thing happens it reflects poorly on us or is a "challenge" to us or a "defeat" for us even though we weren't anywhere near the action.

Aside from arming and training our friends and putting the occasional Hellfire shaped thumb on the scales when things get rough, the US should stay out unless someone is building nukes or credibly threatens to disrupt world energy supplies.  By getting too involved we allow all the players to blame their failures on us.  The Arabs and Muslims desperately need to work out an acceptable settlement between themselves and that will happen faster if there is no outside power trying to orchestrate everything.

And yes I know that I am endorsing Barack Obama's passive approach to this crisis.  So sue me.

Except now the President has panicked and is saying things like "we will act to protect the security of all of our allies".  And even Lizzy "Fauxahontas" Warren is saying that war is now our 'first priority'. You can't make this shit up because no one would believe you.

And here's a ninth reason why we shouldn't get too deeply or visibly involved. That we have a shallow, naive President who twirls like a weathervane depending on who he's talked to last is probably a tenth but I'm tired and ten is too many.