Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
Ray, you are taking the same, shallow, biased tact that everyone else is taking. This is not religious. That is just the way it manifests itself. This is Identity Warfare. The same type of identity warfare that caused the religious wars in Europe or the genocide in Rwanda.

It is a combination of three factors. 1st, a social identity. Depending on your specialty this is either Identity Theory or Social Identity Theory. It is derived from the need for self esteem. The second element is limited resources. In a world of limited resources people tend to band together more tightly into the group that they identify with. This is derived from our need for security. The final element is some form of injustice, real or perceived. This causes them to lash out against those they see causing the injustice. The fact that this is an identity war should be clear from the fact ISIS claims Takfiri status - able to decide for themselves who shares their identity as a true Muslim and who does not.

The second and third elements are relative. Resource constraint was far greater 200 years ago. Each group compares themselves with other groups - where do they stand relative to others.

There are three ways to fight an identity war, 1) diminish the identity - you do this by crushing it (Not advised); 2) replace the identity - the idea behind creating a state identity (we are all Iraqis) or an individual identity* (the liberal or democratic peace); or 3) divide and conquer - find the fault lines within the group and exploit them. That is a temporary solution, but it can work.

Besides the fact that we are missing the reality of the situation, as long as we think this is a religious war it will never end ... well, it can end, when you kill off all the "radical" Muslims. But odds are that, the farther you go, the larger the group of "radical" Muslims becomes until you wipe them all out.

*creating a liberal identity requires removing the resource limitation. Once resources are sufficient then people no longer feel the need to band tightly together and begin to accept others for their individual characteristics instead of their stereotypical group identity.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean Ray's comments are shallow are biased. The Indians have lived with this threat within their borders much longer than we have and don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines accusing others of being shallow and biased. In fact our political correctness is its own form of bias that often prevents us viewing things as they actually are, instead we interpret events, data, etc. through a very biased perceptional lens, one that hasn't been overly helpful in recent years.

This is not religious.
This statement as a standalone statement is ridiculous.

Fortunately you wrote:
That is just the way it manifests itself. This is Identity Warfare.
I have been saying this for years, using the same logic with street gangs, insurgents, etc., but the key driver to that identity is religion in this case. Take the religion out of it the identity isn't there for most of these groups we're discussing. Not unlike communism, it can be a global identity and result in mobilizing people globally, which is why the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. is not simply a local issue. How this identity manifests globally will vary based on those who identify with it, some will act locally (spread the conflict between Shia and Sunni), some will travel to the jihad and only act in the field of battle, other travelers will return and continue their jihad in their host or native country. We have seen this happen for decades, yet seem to lack an appreciation of this challenge.

I agree it is certainly more than religion, and I agree with the argument that we can't solve this problem with the military alone. If the Maliki government remains in power there appears to be little chance of reconciliation, so it will be a fight that continues for decades unless one side gains sufficient strength to defeat the other. At best we can defend Baghdad and keep a corrupt government in power, which may be the lesser of two evils for western interests compared to having a Caliphate ran by a group with a vision similar to Al-Qaeda.

You offer three ways to defeat an identity war, but you can't defeat war, so I think you meant take the wind of out the identities that have resulted in war? In other words you're looking at achieving peace, not defeating one identity or the other. I agree you can't crush an identity, any attempt to do so will only make it stronger, which is partly why our GWOT efforts have resulted in an expansion of global AQism. We supported their narrative, which is why I'm a believer in clandestine, covert, low visibility operations to kill off the AQ members that threaten us without the fanfare, but we're well past that point.

We're not capable of replacing the identity with a state identity, in fact the West has attempted that, and that is largely what has led to much of the violence in the world. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is an example, the West drew the lines that latter became states that didn't work, and of course we did the same in Africa and elsewhere. If this isn't a normative model I don't know what is. Individuals decide who they will identify with, we can't replace that. We try to offer alternatives, and in this recent conflict our alternative identities have been rejected, so back to drawing board. As for divide and conquer, how will this work? This reminds me of the Brits leveraging minorities in their territories to help control the territory, which almost always led to major bloodshed after the Brits left, to include the millions killed when India formed East and West Pakistan. If anything this simply strengthens the identity of the opposing groups.

I'm not convinced on the argument that if you remove the resource limitation that people will not band tightly and accept others. I think we're confusing our model in the U.S. which is based on much more than economics with the idea model what will resolve conflict around the globe. We also have a different level and type of education, Judea-Christian based value system, a national norm that promotes equality in opportunity (not in practice always, but it can be pursued through the legal system when it is denied), etc. Attempting to solve the problems in Iraq through economic development alone will not result in the same conditions we enjoy.

We have to be realists while at the same time I hope we continue to be idealists. The situation in Iraq threatens more than Iraq, and each country will perceive that threat differently based on their interests and how it manifests in their country. When it comes to being bias, we are often at the top of that list.