One year ago ISIS was ISIL and it was contesting for control of a Syria that looked like it was about to fall. It did not. An Islamist group like ISIL/ISIS' most important objective is to get control of a functioning state because the record of non-state actors conquering functioning states in the modern era is dismal. Without a modern state to control ISIS is forced to rely on extortion, illegal drug trades and alms from the faithful to fund its Jihad. Wars are expensive and winners don't get there by imitating Don Corleone or the Salvation Army. This is why ISIS' invasion of Iraq's Anbar province was it's first admission of defeat. You can't dislodge one shoddy tottering Arab state beset by enemies all 'round so you invade another shoddy tottering Arab state beset by enemies all around? So starting a two front war because you couldn't win a one front war and declaring war on the United States is ISIS' war winning strategy? Really? Only ISIS has gone even further by engaging in one of the most remarkable anti PR campaigns in history by promoting their atrocities on Youtube. So why would someone whose primary goal is to get control of a functioning state and be recognized as a state actor promote their atrocities? After all if you want to get control of either Syria or Iraq you will need to either conquer a whole bunch of minorities or persuade them that you're the best alternative for them to live under which suggests that you shouldn't be slaughtering them. And whatever hacking off heads and setting fire to people on TV does for you it doesn't promote your suitability as a negotiating partner in international confabs.
Just what are the motives behind ISIS' atrocities? There are two types: the first is the Youtube Hackemoff (or Burnemup) - focused on western audiences and very theatrical. The second atrocity type is the "non Sunni village murder, rape and/or kidnap them all" routine. So why is ISIS doing the Youtube promos? After all, these vile atrocities guarantee global revulsion and horror. But they also generate donations, protection payments and volunteers - things that a group that does not control a functioning state desperately needs. And the village chaos is simply another indicator that ISIS is not a state actor and has given up becoming one. The likely reason there is so much chaos is because the volunteers their video promos are getting them are more depraved than pious and even more importantly because they aren't getting paid. So like every underpaid army in history these pious butchers are sacking every enemy town they get their hands on and liquidating every asset available {including the young women} to generate cash to feed and arm themselves against everyone else who now have very good reasons to oppose them. (Incidentally, the abolition of slavery is the reason that only young women are spared because they can be brothelized to generate cash and anyway the soldiers can get a non-financial benefit out of their presence. In the past the entire population would have been auctioned off to the slave merchants that followed every conquering army.)
So to summarize: the moment ISIL invaded Anbar and became ISIS it admitted defeat in its most necessary goal of getting control of a functioning state. It has now set out to become a 'bigger, stronger' Al Qaeda which is why the telegenic atrocities are so important: building share of mind among Islam's bloodthirsty remnant, intimidating Gulf governments into paying protection money and generating alms and suicidal recruits. And like Al Qaeda, it will get its leaders glory, its followers killed and not change the balance of power appreciably.
The real question isn't why the Islamists do what they do, but why the West, particularly conservatives like me in the United States are so panicked by ISIS. This panic appears to be genuine and not simply a tactical maneuver designed to score points against Barack Obama. But there is no basis for it. As I point out above. ISIS' behavior is playing right into the global war against terror playbook. After all, they've given up on conquering Syria, the one thing they could have done to truly destabilize the Middle East. It's as if American conservatives have internalized Barack Obama's critique of the West: that we're really no better, no more capable than your run of the mill less developed Arab state and therefore we should be panicked when an insurgency gets control of a desert inhabited largely by their sympathetic Sunni clansmen half a world away. And the argument that this will become a 'base for terror' is equally silly. There are dozens of places in this world so disorganized that terrorists could use them to base their operations - any place with major drug production operations for starters. Indeed if the ISIS wasteland does become a concentration point for Islamic terror training and deployment all the better: concentrate the thugs in one place for efficient killing. If there is one thing that the last decade and a half has shown us it's that Islamic terror is protean and does not require sophisticated training and logistics to unsettle the west.
The real problem with ISIS panic among conservatives is that it diverts attention away from Iran's quest to become an atomic power and Barack Obama's supine acceptance of that outcome. Nukes are the real game changer in the middle east and if I were of a more conspiratorial bent I would propose that ISIS and it's boffo Youtube channel are actually a diversion being funded by the Mullahs in Tehran to divert western attention away from the real threat.
A century ago today's conservative beliefs were dominant in the west as they had been in one form or another for several hundred years. Back then confidence in Western culture, Judeo-Christian ethics and classical liberal economics enabled the west to conquer and/or dominate the entire globe. The replacement of this 'classical' liberalism with 'socialist' liberalism after two world wars led to the complete collapse of Western political dominance. The West didn't suddenly become too weak to dominate the world, we simply lost our conservative, Christian, liberal faith in ourselves. It is ironic that today's panicked conservatives are channeling the profound pessimism about us that informs Barack Obama and our increasingly 'socialist' liberal geopolitics rather than the robust confidence of our forefathers.
It's time for conservatives to have the confidence of our convictions and believe in the society that our forbears built. Quit panicking.
No comments:
Post a Comment