The New Shock and Awe

Excuse the longer-than-usual blog, but we are facing one of the most difficult set of decisions in recent memory. It’s necessary to look at what is at stake. The Islamic State has been wildly successful in a very short time. A relatively small number of fearsome and dedicated troops have sent millions and millions of residents in conquered lands into cowering submission. We used to think of al Qaeda as the baddest of the bad, an organization that had no problem crashing passenger aircraft into buildings with no military value as well as those in the heart of the American military hierarchy. But they couched their war as supporting their religious mandate and as defensive against American incursions in the Middle East, our support of corrupt regimes in their midst and our “theft” of oil from the region.

The Afghan Taliban, applying brutality I have blogged about recently, have always explained their conduct in terms of religious purity, fealty to their fundamentalist view of Sunni Islam. Iranian Ayatollahs have pursued similar “purity” in their practice of Shia Islam, imposing religious requirements at every level of life in that nation, punishing severely those who might challenge them. The constant in these mega-fundamentalist global menaces is that they anchor their practices in cloaks of religious mandates and/or defensive strategies. Explanations. Rationales. Reasons that allow adherents to find “goodness” under their violent practices.

Enter the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or whatever name you wish to use. Their leadership isn’t religiously deep, and while their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is schooled in Islam, his own statements make it clear that his view of Sunni practices is still evolving and not remotely concretized. IS leadership doesn’t use religious dogma to justify their actions. Instead, their violent rigidity, complete unwillingness to discuss or compromise their quest with anyone, is born of their dedication to ultra-violence (from horrific torture and nasty beheadings to mass genocidal killings) as a means of creating willing submission of conquered peoples and to attract potential fighters around the world drawn to the power of such perverse slaughter. It is the glue, they believe, that will actually generate the massive, world-power Sunni caliphate they dream of.

The philosophical transition to raw bloodshed with little or no concern for the consequences is what makes the Islamic State particularly hateful… and why it has been so effective in subjugating its conquered peoples. It is also why it must be crushed as quickly as possible. “Conscious of the importance of winning hearts and minds, [Osama] Bin Laden sold his message to Muslims and even Americans as self-defence, not aggression… This kind of justification, however, carries no weight with IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who cannot care less what the world thinks of his blood-letting.

“In fact, he and his cohorts revel in displaying barbarity and coming across as savage… In contrast to the first two waves [of earlier Islamic extremism], IS actually stresses violent action over theology and theory, and has produced no repertoire of ideas to sustain and nourish its social base. It is a killing machine powered by blood and iron.

“Going beyond Bin Laden's doctrine that ‘when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse,’ al-Baghdadi's ‘victory through terrorism’ signals to friends and foes that IS is a winning horse. Get out of the way or you will be crushed; join our caravan and make history… Increasing evidence shows that over the past few months, hundreds, if not thousands, of diehard former Islamist enemies of IS, such as the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic Front, answered al-Baghdadi's call.” BBC.com, September 9^th (which also presented the map above).

Of course, those who suffer most under IS’ rule are the conquered peoples, particularly opposing soldiers (there are no Geneva Conventions here), foreign nationals (IS actually bought journalist Steven Sotloff from lesser Sunnis in Syria to behead), and religious groups outside of their view of proper Sunni practices (notably Christians but especially Shiites).

The Islamic State is not unstoppable. Kurdish Peshmerga fighters with mere light arms against IS tanks and heavy artillery made heroic stands with help from U.S. airstrikes, taking back territory and repelling new assaults. To date, American policy makers have struggled with equipping these Kurds (and other potential coalition fighters – blowback fears) with heavy equipment concerned that such weapons might be used to support a later Kurdish breakaway from the “Iraq” we fought hard to hold together.

Who cares about holding Iraq together? Even as the new Iraqi government struggles to create a semblance of unity among the majority Shiites and the Kurdish and Sunni minorities, as Sunni bombs continue to blast away in Baghdad neighborhoods, the integrity of an artificially defined country pales in comparison to defeating a growing genocidal body of uber-extremists. Okay, because the President won’t authorize American combat forces, he has finally authorized arming Syrian rebels willing to confront the IS.  

The turmoil of regional hostilities has made al-Baghdadi smile. “ISIS has so far thrived in part because its enemies are also enemies of one another, a reality that has complicated efforts to muster a strong response to its rampage. That factor has been a crucial consideration in war planning in capitals as diverse as Tehran and Washington, London and Damascus. But the potential threat has also forced a re-examination of centuries old tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, Kurds and Turks…

“In Syria, the United States has called for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, while Iran has supported him. Russia, which has increasingly angered the West with its military involvement in Ukraine, is also another important ally of Mr. Assad. So Mr. Obama has to calculate how to fight ISIS without appearing to aid Mr. Assad and the agenda of Iran and Russia. If he helped the Syrian president, even indirectly, he would violate his own stated objective and anger Turkey, an important American partner in the region that has long opposed Mr. Assad.” New York Times, September 9^th.

As our President tells us he is escalating our presence against the Islamic State, fostering growing coalitions of regional and global powers and willing even to mount air strikes in IS-held Syrian territory, the need for so much more –  immediate, massive and decisive action on the ground – is imperative: to minimize civilian casualties that cannot be avoided with air strikes, to find and hold murderers and torturers responsible for their actions, to decimate the sophisticated weapons their have purloined, to take back the oil fields that are pouring cash into their pockets and to retake and hold the vast tracts of land that are under IS control.

The longer we wait, the more the assemblage of killer-Sunni groups will cluster around IS. Boko Haram, the Taliban, and all the scattered Sunni-extremist groups in pockets all over the world. They are equally ready to adopt IS’ brutal tactics as effective unless we can prove that they are not. As Congress is posturing and unable to take a truly strong stand under pressure from the upcoming mid-terms, it is time for a wishy-washy American President to do more! There are cries for no boots on the ground, but, Congress seems to be saying, let’s look like we are actually doing something: “Senate Democratic leaders are preparing legislation to expressly authorize the United States military to train foreign troops for the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a move that will give lawmakers a chance to weigh in on the looming military action before the midterm elections.

“Although the ground forces being trained would not be American, the trainers would be a ‘boots on the ground’ prospect that might not sit well with members of both parties. No money would be attached to the measure, but a request for around $500 million might come later this fall, Senate Democratic aides said…

“Ahead of the president’s speech to the nation [September 10^th] night, the prospect of expanding the war on ISIS — also known as ISIL — has already become political fodder. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, took to the Senate floor to denounce what he called Mr. Obama’s weak and failed foreign policy, but he will be hard-pressed to oppose the pending vote, which could come as soon as this week.” New York Times, September 10^th. This is Congressional hedging and avoiding making the kinds of decisions we must take to stop this cancer… or face a widening and vastly more expensive effort in the future.

The President’s speech later on September 10^th did not remotely begin to solve a problem that will get much worse much faster without much stronger reactive force. Allowing air strikes into Syria (“You will find no safe haven,” notes Obama) and acting like a Commander-in-Chief responding to attacks and execution of Americans? “Leading a broad-based coalition of partners”? Good but not enough. Sending hundreds of additional U.S. troops to “assess the situation” and “train” local forces where needed, but not to join in the fight themselves. Can we really rely strictly on ground forces from regional powers? Is the Iraqi Army remotely good enough? So far, there is little evidence to support that conclusion. Saudis? Turks? We know the Kurds are part of the battle. IS has too many local soldiers terrified.

Here are a few excerpts from the President’s speech: “Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy…. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.”

Doing this slowly, escalating gradually, doesn’t work, and such half-hearted responses may in fact drag this war for years longer than we can imagine. The global mandate is there. The willingness of other nations to join to fight this monster is there, although expanding the coalition to embrace NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia (with donors to IS in their midst) would be a huge step forward as well. And if the big bad dog can be seen as a big bad loser, its ability to recruit more perverted monsters and to inspire Sunni imitators and wannabes into parallel acts of violence will dissipate.

The Islamic State is focused on their task at hand… for now. “At the height of Israeli bombings of Gaza in August, militants on social media criticised IS for killing Muslims while doing nothing to help the Palestinians… IS retorted by saying the struggle against the Shia [Iran is over 90% Shia and Iran 60%] takes priority over everything else.

“Now that the US and Europe have joined the conflict against IS, the group will use all its assets in retaliation, including further beheading of hostages. There is also a growing likelihood that it will attack soft diplomatic targets in the Middle East… While it might want to stage a spectacular operation on the American or European homeland, it is doubtful that IS currently has the capabilities to carry out complex attacks like 9/11.” BBC.com. Currently.

 I’m Peter Dekom, and some horrific realities require powerful and immediate global responses to destroy.