25 June 2014
For all the talk and turmoil in Washington over who lost
Iraq, a few rather important things are missing from the discussion.
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, moved into and
has occupied the north-central part of Iraq from Syria and presently lie within
striking distance of Baghdad. Unable to
make headway in Syria against the government forces of President Bashir
al-Assad, this force of ISIS, once estimated to be about 6,000 men in size,
moved east and south into Iraqi territory against an utterly demoralized and
unprofessionally led Iraqi military.
ISIS “conquered” and occupied the city Mosul, and many other minor towns
and villages. ISIS members savagely
murdered thousands of innocents and those protected by the Laws of War in their
area of control.
Curiously, everybody seems to take for granted the claim by
ISIS that it intends to establish an Islamic Caliphate. Official Washington and many on the political
right believe that such a state would represent a threat to the strategic
interests of the United States, and perhaps serve as a base for terrorist
strikes within homeland America. As
such, military intervention by the United States, either in the form of air
strikes or of military “boots on the ground,” is justified to turn the tide in
Iraq.
Thinking people ought to be able to make their own
assessment and reach their own conclusions.
It seems, as in the case of Boko Haram, that Washington takes the
political protestations of a gang of murderers altogether too seriously. From a close analysis of the facts on the
ground one can reach the conclusion that the career of ISIS amounts to nothing
more than the madcap adventures of a homicidal egomaniac. That person is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an
alias.
ISIS says it desires to create an Islamic Caliphate under
strict Sharia law. A Caliphate is a
special thing in Islamic history and teaching; it amounts to the empire of the
Ummah, the believers; and is led by a Caliph.
Nobody seems to ask ISIS who this Caliph is supposed to be. More importantly, what will be the
relationship between this Caliph and the King and state of Saudi Arabia, the
King of Jordan, and the Presidents and states of Iran, Egypt, and Turkey? By rights, these individuals and states
should be vassals and vassal states of the Caliph, and historically this state
of subordination was maintained by a combination of money, diplomacy, and
military force. A little reflection will
lead one to conclude that this Islamic Caliphate of ISIS amounts to a good deal
of pretense and not a little egomania.
As for strict Sharia law as the basis of ISIS’s caliphate,
that legal regime exists in several other states and would not a novel or
atavistic experiment. Granted, Sharia
law amounts to the dominance of the Muslim male in society, but ISIS, with the
wholesale murders in the territory it has conquered, took this dominance to a
whole new level. Sharia law has certain
injunctions against Muslims killing other Muslims, which to date have not been
enforced by al-Baghdadi against his loyal followers. These wanton murders and this lack of
enforcement of Sharia law demonstrate that the appeal of ISIS to the individual
member of that body is the opportunity to gratify fantasies of dominance and
power over others, and of desires even darker; and that al Baghdadi understands
this.
About half of these loyal followers of his are reported to
have come from rather exotic places: Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and
the United States. Since Sharia law
exists in many established countries, one is entitled to conclude that it is
the adventure and the opportunity for easy gratification of one’s inner demons
that draws these so-called self-radicalized Muslims from the western world to
the war in Syria and now Iraq.
This also gives indication as to the true purpose of ISIS,
and it has nothing to do with the long term resolution of a political
crisis. There is no reason, therefore,
to place any weight on the alleged political program of ISIS. ISIS exists because it can, and survives for
the gratification of the personal demons of its members.
Militarily, ISIS is extremely weak. For any attack by ISIS within homeland
America to occur, the attackers would have board a commercial airliner and pass
through U.S. Customs. The Administration
could protect the American homeland by control at the borders.
-30-
On Monday, June 30th, the AP reported that ISIS
has declared the creation of an Islamic state and their leader, al-Baghdadi,
the Caliph. Previously he was just an Emir. With his proclamation,
he has demanded the submission of all Muslims and declared illegal any
previously created Muslim state, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt,
and so on.
I guess al-Baghdadi answered the questions in the piece above. These answers prove my contention that
al-Baghdadi is an unserious enthusiast; and rather than concede the political
legitimacy of his gang of murderers, we should instead look at what he does
rather than what he says.
The ISIS movement cannot last much longer. Al-Baghdadi
is no longer fighting the United States, or Christian Crusaders, or any other
western phantasm. Now he is declaring war upon solid, well-established
Islamic entities. His supply of western bayonets is going to dry up and
he will suddenly find himself without money, except for the cash he stole from
Iraqi banks.
Focussing on
the criminal acts rather than taking seriously the political proclamations of
these groups is the more informative activity. The alleged political
program of the gang is taken altogether too seriously. A gang of homicidal maniacs drags a red herring of politics
before itself, and the hounds of Washington chase after the fish
