The Hybrid Ideology of the Islamic State
An interesting, pessimistic assessment of the two component parts of ISIS from The Soufan Group:http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrie...islamic-state/
Quote:
IS is now a chimera of Ba’athist and takfiri ideologies, with the organizational skills of the former helping channel the motivational fervor of the latter. The result is an extremist group unlike any other. It’s the merging of Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, with the strengths of one helping negate the weaknesses of the other.
Zealots for the apocalypse
Will McCants (Brookings) explains the motivation of both Sunni and Shi‘a fighters drawn to the Levant battlefield by a common apocalyptic belief:
Quote:
They fight in the vanguard of the Mahdi, the Muslim savior whom the Prophet Muhammad prophesied would appear in the Levant (the coastal Mediterranean region that includes Syria and Lebanon) at the End of Days to wage a final great battle against the infidels’ armies.
(Later) With the entry of the United States into the field, jihadis anticipate that the ultimate showdown in Dabiq is drawing ever closer. One might expect that the recent entry of infidel armies into Iraq and Syria would lessen the internecine tone of the prophesying and focus attention on the Mahdi’s battle with the infidels. But it has only heightened the sectarian apocalyptic fervor as each sect vies to destroy the other for the privilege of destroying the infidels.
Link:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/t...an-apocalypse/
I have heard Muslims explain this, but Will's explanation is best.
Interview with an Islamic State Recruiter
IFII and IFIS are more appropriate terms than ISIS
Mindset often determines a choice of words. For example pseudo progressives and fellow travellers are especially fond of referring to peoples parties and to liberation.
Rational humans are expected to use less colourful names and terminology but sometimes fail to do so. That is aggravated by the would-be popular media which invariably includes some who will jump on any bandwagon. One result today is the fairly commonplace use of the term ISIS. More appropriate would be IF for Islamic Fascists or interchangeably Islamist Fascism, and IS referring to in Syria.
Hence IFIS in Syria but IFII in Iraq. IFII sounds appropriate even though some might suppose it refers to Yemen. And IFII seems doubly appropriate because swarming as a form of auftragtaktik is unlikely to succeed at the operational level of conflict.
ISIS’ fighting doctrine: Sorting fact from fiction
An Arab website has this interesting analysis, it is in English:
Starts with:
Quote:
A careful and specialized examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the fighting doctrine and the military performance of suicidal salafi jihadi groups, such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is yet to be done. Such a study has not been carried out by official military authorities in countries directly affected, such as Iraq and Syria, or by scholars specialized in studying these groups. Nevertheless, it is possible to review some of the information on the issue found in different publications.
Note the emphasis on "technicals" and the aggressive use of snipers.
Citing Justin Bronk, a RUSI analyst:
Quote:
A particular speciality is outflanking defensive positions and then mopping up defenders who attempt to retreat. The tactic is as much psychological as it is kinetic, and is greatly magnified by the horrendous and public brutality ISIS has systematically exhibited wherever it has gained control.
Link:http://english.al-akhbar.com/content...g-fact-fiction
Link to the article by Justin Bronk, written two weeks ago:http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/17/op...las/index.html
Why the Islamic State is Winning.
A pithy commentary by John Schindler of the US strategy and approach to countering Daesh / ISIS. Try this:
Quote:
To be blunt, we kill very effectively but we have precious little understanding of how to transform Muslim societies by force.
Link:http://20committee.com/2014/11/14/wh...te-is-winning/
Here are some tasters:
Quote:
The U.S. military is quite capable of defeating almost any adversary on the battlefield, even Da’ish, though that is not the same thing as producing lasting political outcomes that Americans will like. This is particularly true in the Greater Middle East, where the politico-cultural barriers to Westernization delivered by the barrel of a gun are steep and strong.
It is now time, indeed long overdue, to dispense with magical thinking about what the application of American military power might achieve in any lasting strategic or political sense in the Middle East.
I'd forgotten the Italian pacification of Libya (1928-1932):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification_of_Libya
Which today is not an option for the USA or its allies.
Yes there is a thread 'Watching ISIS' into which this will be merged one day. It is worth a thread to alert readers and perhaps respond.
Finally:
Quote:
A necessary first step is having a genuine debate about what our military can — and cannot — achieve in Iraq and Syria.