Beyond the frontline: watching ISIS

[davidbfpo]

Yassin Musharbash, a German-Jordanian journalist and Jihad watcher, has a short five point commentary '5 Things we don't know about the Caliphate':http://abususu.blogspot.de/2014/08/5...caliphate.html

Why another five point eludes me. He explains, with his emphasis:

So in the interest of self-discipline, academic transparency and self-questioning, here is a brief list of the five most important things we (or I, at least) do not know about the Caliphate, but really wish I knew

[davidbfpo]

Four quite different commentaries found today; two British and two American.

'The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west' by Sonny Handal. As the title implies he is worried:

In many ways it is perhaps the worst development in recent Muslim history since 9/11. There are two reasons for this: First, it is likely to cause even greater unrest in countries where Muslims aren't a majority, and second, the Islamic State group could tear apart the Middle East and cause further unrest for generations.

I have long argued that strategically it is important to keep India's Muslims in view, so this passage is not good news:

India, which has the world's second-largest Muslim population, is especially in shock after Islamic State sympathisers have turned up from Kashmir in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south. There is not one recorded instance of an Indian Muslim having fought for al-Qaeda, but already four are suspected of having joined the group.

Link:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...357532975.html

Majid Nawaz, of the Quilliam Foundation, ex-radical, makes a good contribution on what ISIS means and its methods. His advocated response is wishful thinking:http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/wha...-east-needs/#_

Paul Pillar I expect is known to American readers anyway an ex-CIA analyst and writes in 'National Interest':http://nationalinterest.org/blog/pau...spective-11150

It is very much IMHO a plea to recognise lessons learnt and ends with:

In that regard we cannot remind ourselves often enough—especially because this fact seems to have been forgotten amid the current discussion of ISIS—that ISIS itself was born as a direct result of the United States going after a different monster in Iraq.

The last article, the shortest, is a braoder outlook:

We’re caught in a revenge cycle with a death cult, and it’s redefining modern warfare.

Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...ighting-a-war/

[davidbfpo]

Clint Watts (CWOT on SWC) has followed ISIS closer than most analysts. His short FPRI column asks: Why would the U.S. want to be ISIS’s ‘Far Enemy’?

For ISIS, attacking the U.S. may be a long-term objective but their base of support is mobilized by its delivery on objectives that al Qaeda touted but never moved on-–e.g., establishment of an Islamic State, governance by Sharia law, and widespread violence against all enemies of jihadi interpretations of Islam.

Link:http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/201...siss-far-enemy

[davidbfpo]

From a long, mainly historical explanation, by Alistair Crooke: 'You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia':http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alasta..._5717157.html?

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

His last paragraph is rather savage:

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

[davidbfpo]

I have just copied over twentyseven posts from the current Iraq thread, back to pg.30 so approx. a month's review.

Our resident SME Joel Wing no doubt has commentaries on ISIS on his own website:http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/

For those who want to look back before Mosul fell and a more strategic assessment I commend Clint Watts writing on FPRI:http://www.fpri.org/contributors/clint-watts and his own website:http://selectedwisdom.com/

I am sure there are other SME and ones outside the USA. If you know of any please post a link.

[davidbfpo]

Two of the better articles seen today. First 'How to Beat the Islamic State' by Jeff Stein in Newsweek, which relies on those with experience, citing a number:http://www.newsweek.com/how-beat-islamic-state-267273

The second 'Let’s Keep ISIS in Perspective' is from a blogsite, the author Wayne White is a former INR officer and sounds caution:http://www.lobelog.com/lets-keep-isis-in-perspective/

[davidbfpo]

Brian Jenkins of RAND has a short column:

The threat al-Baghdadi poses shouldn’t be dismissed, of course. But before the U.S. engages in what could be another messy military intervention in Iraq, one that may well extend into Syria, it’s worth taking a closer look at Islamic State and its internal dynamics. Contrary to the rhetoric, Islamic State does not surpass every threat the U.S. has seen.

Link:http://www.businessweek.com/articles...lnerability#p1