4 ms·

Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting. In the end I think IS

Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting. In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil. I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship. Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- dragontamer 11y ago
  As would any reasonable approach. Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades. One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
  - vlunkr 11y ago
    I really don't see how any of this could turn into a "Total War." ISIS is tiny compared to all the nations who now want to see them destroyed. That's why they can only accomplish small, surprise attacks like the ones in Paris. Maybe they are the biggest threat right now, but really, how big of a threat are they?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Revolutionary armed vanguards tend to be small. That doesn't mean they can't have big impacts, or establish dominion over large territories and number of people cowed by the fear of violence (both the fear of violence from the vanguard, and the fear of violence from outsiders who have been turned against the dominated group by the actions of the vanguard.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 11y ago
As would any reasonable approach. Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades. One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
- vlunkr 11y ago
  I really don't see how any of this could turn into a "Total War." ISIS is tiny compared to all the nations who now want to see them destroyed. That's why they can only accomplish small, surprise attacks like the ones in Paris. Maybe they are the biggest threat right now, but really, how big of a threat are they?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Revolutionary armed vanguards tend to be small. That doesn't mean they can't have big impacts, or establish dominion over large territories and number of people cowed by the fear of violence (both the fear of violence from the vanguard, and the fear of violence from outsiders who have been turned against the dominated group by the actions of the vanguard.)