The Bloody End of the Islamic State's Utopian Dream

Discussion in 'The Grand Chessboard' started by fuz al-nufi, Oct 21, 2017.

  1. fuz al-nufi Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    5,590
    Location:
    wonderland
    Reputation:
    110,780,971
    Ratings Received:
    +6,247 / 330 / -379
    [IMG]
    Fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces dance along a street in Raqqa, Syria, on October 18, 2017. Erik de Castro / Reuters

    The Bloody End of the Islamic State's Utopian Dream

    “The fall of Raqqa this week completed the slow-motion demolition of the world’s only utopian movement worthy of the name.”

    The fall of Raqqa this week completed the slow-motion demolition of the world’s only utopian movement worthy of the name. Like most utopian movements, the Islamic State was barbaric and iniquitous, precisely because it held its own refinement and egalitarianism in such high regard. Assume eventual absolution by history or God, and anything goes in the meantime.

    The pleasure of dancing on the Islamic State’s grave should not be denied, even if it is true, as experts remind us, that its zombified hand might yet emerge from the earth to grab our ankles as we do so. Having lost Raqqa (and before it Hawija, Tal Afar, and Mosul), it now still holds border areas between Iraq and Syria, plus isolated territory in Libya, Sinai, Afghanistan, and the southern Philippines. What it no longer controls is territory from which it can make its most important claim—that it has built a paradise on earth, where God’s law is the only law, and Muslims can live lives that fully express their faith. It once boasted that women, children, and the elderly could live full and happy lives in Raqqa. Now an invitation to hijra—migration to Islamic State territory—is simply an invitation to die quickly on the field of battle.

    What hasn’t received much attention, amid the celebration, is the manner in which that death has been dealt. In May, Defense Secretary James Mattis said the war against the Islamic State had shifted from a war of attrition (slip their heads into a noose, then squeeze) to a war of “annihilation” and “humiliation.” He has kept his word. Although many Islamic State fighters have surrendered—sometimes in humiliating fashion—almost all are Syrians and Iraqis who joined the group pragmatically, and not members of the 40,000-strong contingent of foreign fighters who migrated in the supposed path of God. We haven’t yet heard stories of mass surrender by foreign fighters. One American Islamic State fighter is in custody, out of well over a hundred known to have traveled to the battlefield. The desert plains of eastern Syria are strewn with the corpses of most of the others, I suspect, along with French, Tunisian, and Chechen colleagues.

    It’s worth reflecting on how foreign a “war of annihilation” is to the modern American way of war. Every war includes targets who are assumed to require extermination, who will not or should not be taken alive. But a war in which most of the enemy is considered beyond any possible surrender or political solution, and must be killed to the last man, is an extraordinary thing, unexampled in American history since the Indian Wars. There will be no ceremony on the USS Missouri, in which an envoy of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi signs an instrument of surrender.

    Instead the coalition seems to prefer that no one make it back alive. French Defense Minister Florence Parly admitted as much this weekend. “If jihadists die in the fighting, then I’d say it’s for the best,” she said. Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union counterterrorism czar, told The Wall Street Journal that he expects the roach-motel model of the Islamic State to be the right one: Most of those who go there won’t come back. “The vast majority would rather die fighting or seek to stay inside Syria.”

    The Islamic State’s foreign fighters chose this end, so if the annihilation of human beings troubles you, take it up with them first and Mattis second. Irrespective of scruples, though, keep in mind the practical effects of this kind of war. If war is hell, this is its ninth circle, the circle of treachery. Watch this video of Islamic State fighters purporting to surrender to Kurdish fighters, then detonating suicide belts as they get close. (The Kurds aren’t hurt. The video is not graphic, but skip it if you don’t want to watch Islamic State fighters disappear in a puff of smoke.) It is little wonder, then, that the easy solution, it seems, has been to bomb Raqqa and kill the remaining resistance rather than wait for proof of its good intentions.

    The cost of this type of fighting is the same cost exacted by the Islamic State in nearly every other city from which it has been dislodged: It leaves behind not a city but a pile of rubble.

    The citizens of that pile of rubble are left to wonder whether its total destruction was preferable to continued rule by the Islamic State, crucifixions and beheadings included. The Kurdish-led, U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have taken Raqqa (and, in a show of idiocy or tone-deafness, placed a large photo of the Leninist Kurdish icon Abdullah Ocalan in its main roundabout). The Islamic State, to the extent that it survives, is falling back—betting that the SDF will fail to govern its prize in a way that will please its surviving residents. And the war of annihilation that allowed the SDF to take Raqqa will make it all but impossible to keep free and stable for long.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  2. Bluto Drunken lout

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    13,262
    Reputation:
    257,389,783
    Ratings Received:
    +17,643 / 68 / -168
    Foreign fighters fuckin' wit' someone's civil war ain't appreciated.
    [IMG]
    Oops-
  3. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,903
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    110,055,296
    Ratings Received:
    +8,416 / 28 / -46


    The Utopian Dream, dreamed by naive patsies was a secondary objective in the overall scheme of things.
    The real force and motivation behind the rise of the Islamic State was the CIA and (((Global Kikery))) who conjured it up (with suport from the usual suspects in the EU, Israel, Alrabia and Central Asia) as a geopolitical tool through which to attack, destabilise & destroy Iran, Central Asia and Russia and to also use it as a wedge against China.

    Those are the true origins and reasons for IS's rise.

    The project has now suffered some setbacks but it is unlikely to be abandoned and it will probably be intensified in Afghanistan & Central Asia.

    Time is running out for the US and the petro-dollar system which has enabled the US dollar to become the world's reserve currency. That petro-dollar system, Fed money printing and a series of military and economic arrangements with the EU is what enables Western Countries, the (((Jewish Banking System))) and Globalist Corporations to become filthily rich and influential.

    As the petro-dollar system is forced into a retreat, the US & EU (incl. UK) will not go down quietly. They will wittingly and unwittingly sow ever more insane and intense conflicts in an attempt to stay relevant against the growing Chinese Economic and Military juggernaut.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    rasputin: 85,016 Points Oct 22, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  4. angry asia man hatamoto 旗本

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2014
    Message Count:
    265
    Reputation:
    15,289,846
    Ratings Received:
    +366 / 3 / -5
    alas for islamic state because the CIA funding dried up
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    fuz al-nufi: -106,144 Points Oct 25, 2017
  5. Angroid CyberSperg 1138

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Message Count:
    5,903
    Location:
    EUSSR
    Reputation:
    110,055,296
    Ratings Received:
    +8,416 / 28 / -46
    Most of the money for it came from Sandy Petro-Dictatorship Shithole Sheikdoms. Funding dried up because of the changing military fortunes and failures of the operation after the Shias & Russia became involved to thwart it. Probably the main reason the funding from A-rab Gulf States appears to be drying up is because the sheikhs are reconsidering their options in the light of new political, economic and military realities they are facing. They appear not to be as firmly behind the US as they used to be.

    Probably in part due to a few of these dumb goat molesters waking up to the reality of how easily the US can and does fuck them over. (Note what (almost) happened to Strong Man Erdogan in Turkey after the failed CIA coup from last year.)

    The A-rabs, being the main funders of ISIS are now reconsidering their options. The US, EU & UK (even Israel) who partially funded but facilitated much of the operation are now also in a somewhat uncomfortable position where it is becoming more difficult for them to cover up their involvement with plausible excuses.

Share This Page