Quote:
A diplomat who is well conversant with the Middle East and a Muslim himself said that ISIS is an amalgam of a variety of people and groups who do not have the same ideology and are independent of each other except for the desire to bring down the Maliki Shia govt, which has not treated the Sunnis fair.
How far is that correct?
AP:
Quote:
If you look at any national operating movement - violent or otherwise - that is nearly always the case. It was true for the Bolsheviks, the IRA, Viet Minh, the Republicans and Democrats, and for ISIS. Really the question is how much fidelity do we have on their internal dynamics, and what is holding them together? What will break them apart? How is affecting their goal-making and strategy? Almost always the problems if internal cohesion are caused by power relationships, and they are resolved through a number of methods: formation of stable coalitions, formal division, purges, demotions, massacres, etc.
Yes 'any national operating movement' is a coalition that starts around a cause, nationalism / independence / communism / liberty / religion etc. Invariably this cause starts small and a "spark" gives their cause traction way beyond the small group. When violence dominates the small group are totally committed, less so those who sympathise and assist - rarely do they assist the 'authorities'. If the later's (not always just the nation-state) methods and objectives fail to gain traction or popular support by being an effective response violence continues. Over a long period the small group's cause is seen as illegitimate and ineffective - enabling the 'authorities' to exploit human weaknesses within the group.