https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-04-15/caliphate-law?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=17577109&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--4wcyJHb_DqFFB0rvU4L47zjxm30XiXTxrVsgxTa9pRdV9cXnAIrUn7yy4YwLkOTcfuDtDrhxeMWC7Zl_qx1N4q7BYtmuGfC_cevdio01Qw9IepHA&_hsmi=17577109

 

Do you think it's more difficult to combat a multi-national terrorist cell like Al-Queda (with expressed aims of violence against the US) or a fully-functioning state (that justifies its atrocities by a sophisticated legal doctrine)?

 

As an American, it's hard (and would be foolish) to ignore the threat of Al-Queda or underestimate their capabilities. But, ISIS looks to be a more dangerous threat in the long run, especially if they continue to amass territories and collect taxes.

Depends on your goals. ISIS requires more resources to control because it has more material to fight with. However, ISIS as an organization is easier to defeat because those resources are physical and can be taken away. Just look at the Taliban, who have largely lost their power in Afghanistan.

 

Al-Queda's resources are largely immaterial, so they are are harder to take away. As long as a Muslim feels that their faith is under attack, Al-Queda will exist. That attack does not even have to be real. So any fight against them is largely ideological and requires equal parts diplomacy, public relations, and actual fighting. This is a long war, but other terrorist organizations have been defeated. If you want to see how, read "The Other Path" by Hernando de Soto for an example of educating the public on the true path to prosperity and providing the tools for them to make it.

 

The problem most of these organizations have is that they will always be limited by the amount of discontent in their audience. If Western and local powers work to address that discontent, then the power of terrorists will wane.

 

It's important to recognize that Arabic Islam is undergoing a cultural growth process that the West went through in the early 1900s. Anarchists & Socialists during that time killed politicians, occupied factories, and threw bombs into crowds. Cults continue to be a problem in the West. If the Branch Davidians had existed in the unstable reaches of Syria, they'd be as much of a problem as ISIS.

 

Arabia's cultural progress was halted by colonialism, but is now proceeding at breakneck speed. Going from tribalism to democracy is not an easy task, especially since most citizens trust their local leaders more than their government and have yet to embrace nationalism. We should help promote stability in the area and oppose anyone that essentially declares war on the world (like ISIS), but peace will only come as the area matures first into nationalist ideas, and then pan-nationalist ideas.

As a compliment to the OP article, here's a longish one from The Atlantic back in February giving insight into the motivating goals and ideology of ISIS:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

I think stopping the funds and weapons flow to the supposed non existent secular rebels in Syria would be a good step, they all end up defecting to Daesh or get killed by them, or are another shade of Daesh, end result being all that money and weapons end up in hands of nihilist lunatics. This balancing act of toppling brutal and secular Assad with more brutal and extremist regime is really just stupid.

 

 

Fundamentally, no matter what it Daesh says or claims, its deriving authority by the point of the gun, its mostly unarmed and poor population (aka civilians) are just that, comply or die. That is their only source of legitimacy, in areas where it wanes, the so called authority collapses.

 

So yea, kill the fighters, the authority will collapse, unlike Taliban who to some extent have population support to be able to operate in cells and really have only transitionary covert rural territorial control ( should have chosen a more competent puppet, unlike Karzai).

 

The outside interference and support to topple Assad spilled over, in the meantime, regime change being enforced upon Iraq created the fertile ground for Daesh to rise up.

Edited May 11, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

ISIS is pretty much lunatics with guns, bent on forcing there agenda and religion on others. It isn't a pretty sight, but I don't see any great solution that going to make everybody happy. 

Didn't they built a five star hotel? Or they claimed to build one? 

think you are thinking of North Korea

That too but look http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/06/isis-is-running-a-5-star-hotel-in-iraq.html

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-04-15/caliphate-law?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=17577109&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--4wcyJHb_DqFFB0rvU4L47zjxm30XiXTxrVsgxTa9pRdV9cXnAIrUn7yy4YwLkOTcfuDtDrhxeMWC7Zl_qx1N4q7BYtmuGfC_cevdio01Qw9IepHA&_hsmi=17577109

 

Do you think it's more difficult to combat a multi-national terrorist cell like Al-Queda (with expressed aims of violence against the US) or a fully-functioning state (that justifies its atrocities by a sophisticated legal doctrine)?

 

As an American, it's hard (and would be foolish) to ignore the threat of Al-Queda or underestimate their capabilities. But, ISIS looks to be a more dangerous threat in the long run, especially if they continue to amass territories and collect taxes.

 

First off:

 

Its spectacular and seemingly arbitrary violence has spawned an obsession with dramatic questions: Is ISIS truly “Islamic”? Or is it better compared to modern nihilists and exotic apocalyptic death cults?

 

The Islamic State and groups like them are not Sunni or Shia. I would call them Khawarij. This is why they are not a good example of the religion of Islam. They are a violent warmongering sect of Islam that have no real loyalty and have been historically annihilated by other Muslims because of their extreme obsessions with death and war. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij

 

Second, the way Islamic State governs has been something I've been bringing up since they proclaimed their caliphate. They aren't stupid. They know how to function and finance. Rather than hide in the shadows, what ISIS has done is gone entirely on the offensive and embraced the spotlight of the world to inspire all sorts of disgruntled Sunni.

 

 

I think stopping the funds and weapons flow to the supposed non existent secular rebels in Syria would be a good step, they all end up defecting to Daesh or get killed by them, or are another shade of Daesh, end result being all that money and weapons end up in hands of nihilist lunatics. This balancing act of toppling brutal and secular Assad with more brutal and extremist regime is really just stupid.

 

 

Fundamentally, no matter what it Daesh says or claims, its deriving authority by the point of the gun, its mostly unarmed and poor population (aka civilians) are just that, comply or die. That is their only source of legitimacy, in areas where it wanes, the so called authority collapses.

 

So yea, kill the fighters, the authority will collapse, unlike Taliban who to some extent have population support to be able to operate in cells and really have only transitionary covert rural territorial control ( should have chosen a more competent puppet, unlike Karzai).

 

The outside interference and support to topple Assad spilled over, in the meantime, regime change being enforced upon Iraq created the fertile ground for Daesh to rise up.

Stopping any flow of guns into Syria isn't going to do much. Pretty sure a flow from Russia would still be there, and guns are just too easy to get your hands on. War is a very lucrative business and wherever it happens, guns will get there and someone is getting rich.

As a compliment to the OP article, here's a longish one from The Atlantic back in February giving insight into the motivating goals and ideology of ISIS:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

 

Depends on your goals. ISIS requires more resources to control because it has more material to fight with. However, ISIS as an organization is easier to defeat because those resources are physical and can be taken away. Just look at the Taliban, who have largely lost their power in Afghanistan.

 

Al-Queda's resources are largely immaterial, so they are are harder to take away. As long as a Muslim feels that their faith is under attack, Al-Queda will exist. That attack does not even have to be real. So any fight against them is largely ideological and requires equal parts diplomacy, public relations, and actual fighting. This is a long war, but other terrorist organizations have been defeated. If you want to see how, read "The Other Path" by Hernando de Soto for an example of educating the public on the true path to prosperity and providing the tools for them to make it.

 

The problem most of these organizations have is that they will always be limited by the amount of discontent in their audience. If Western and local powers work to address that discontent, then the power of terrorists will wane.

 

It's important to recognize that Arabic Islam is undergoing a cultural growth process that the West went through in the early 1900s. Anarchists & Socialists during that time killed politicians, occupied factories, and threw bombs into crowds. Cults continue to be a problem in the West. If the Branch Davidians had existed in the unstable reaches of Syria, they'd be as much of a problem as ISIS.

 

Arabia's cultural progress was halted by colonialism, but is now proceeding at breakneck speed. Going from tribalism to democracy is not an easy task, especially since most citizens trust their local leaders more than their government and have yet to embrace nationalism. We should help promote stability in the area and oppose anyone that essentially declares war on the world (like ISIS), but peace will only come as the area matures first into nationalist ideas, and then pan-nationalist ideas.

 

I've read that Al-Queda's immaterial resources (in the form of popular support of their model for jihadism) has been waning, largely due to generational differences. Perhaps that too is a result of the cultural growth in Arabic Islam (I would like to throw in the Arab Spring movement as well, but I'm not yet as well informed on it).

 

And I'm for promoting stability in the region, but you can't make a move in say Syria without a ripple effect on Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, etc. Even then who bears the burden of finding that right sequence and balance of moves? Is is shared equally by the affected peoples and Western powers?

Maybe the good move was to not make a move in Syria in first place, but no, some powers just want compliant govts everywhere.

 

Brutal reality is that it was in interest of few regional and other powers to see Syria get wrecked, that happened, now there is the consequence...

 

Once again people are discussing consequences and feeling all appalled and outraged rather than connecting the dots to the respective foreign policies of various actors in play as some (not all) of the root causes.

Edited May 12, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

IS can pretend to be a state all it wants, but the reality is as Shah described: their authority comes from the point of a gun. Sure, they operate in a more-or less disciplined fashion (according to their own rules), but all this high-level organization from courts to "opening" a 5-star hotel is mostly just propaganda. After all if they're going to call themselves the "Islamic" "State", they need to pretend to function as an actual state. This is also the primary appeal of their recruitment.

 

In truth, ISIS could be wiped off fairly easily, with a sufficiently dedicated offensive (meaning boots on the ground), but currently, there are no state actors in the region or otherwise to dedicate sufficient resources to this.

Yea, we got bunch of failed states and the states that are acting are acting out of ulterior motives that has more to do with their own proxies and influence ( Sunni Arabs vs Shia Arabs and Persians).

 

Now, we need to start focusing on Libya, IS is making inroads in the deep desert inlands and some coastel areas, given a free reign they'll eventually run over the other bickering factions.

 

Now EU just gets thousands of refugees on the southern borders, I fear they'll try to smuggle terrorists. Unfortunately its going to become even more unfortunate for refugees caught in between.

 

If a dozen of well armed terrorists land, they're going to create a spectacle of terrorism, what they always seek, helps them with propaganda.

 

IMO this is a major major threat to EU, shockingly its not making enough noise on the media.

Agreed, this situation in Libya needs to be dealt with, one way or the other. I you ask me, Europe needs to gets its act together and start developing its own military capabilities. We had the luxury of not having to spend much on military for near 25 years as Russia was not a factor and North Africa was stable. What we couldn't handle ourselves, the US did it for us, but these times are over.

Agreed, this situation in Libya needs to be dealt with, one way or the other. I you ask me, Europe needs to gets its act together and start developing its own military capabilities. We had the luxury of not having to spend much on military for near 25 years as Russia was not a factor and North Africa was stable. What we couldn't handle ourselves, the US did it for us, but these times are over.

Europe got the tech and capability, but there's lack of political will and investment.

 

Russia is catching up fast in tech and capability (only country prototyping stealth fighter outside US and China, new gen armor rolling out).

 

In any case, I do not think Russia would touch any NATO or western European country.

It is very unlikely, yes, but we can no longer pretend that military spending is a thing of the past.

A good read on how "well" the "Caliphate" functions: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854

 

Agreed, this situation in Libya needs to be dealt with, one way or the other. I you ask me, Europe needs to gets its act together and start developing its own military capabilities. We had the luxury of not having to spend much on military for near 25 years as Russia was not a factor and North Africa was stable. What we couldn't handle ourselves, the US did it for us, but these times are over.

Europe got the tech and capability, but there's lack of political will and investment.

 

Russia is catching up fast in tech and capability (only country prototyping stealth fighter outside US and China, new gen armor rolling out).

 

In any case, I do not think Russia would touch any NATO or western European country.

 

 

 

It is very unlikely, yes, but we can no longer pretend that military spending is a thing of the past.

Unlikely yes, but not impossible. I feel Putin may well have the support at home he needs if he chooses to slowly expand Russia as we might be seeing in Ukraine.