Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Allah Winning?
Is Allah winning? He certainly seems to be doing so. The Islamic State has captured, among other areas, strategic towns in both Iraq and Syria: in Iraq, Ramadi, in Syria, Palmyra. This means that the Islamic State controls a large area of Iraq and Syria.
The Daily Mail on Friday, May 22, carries an article showing how the Islamic State has doubled the area it holds in Syria. The Atlantic shows this map of Syria and Iraq. Observe how close Ramadi is to Baghdad and Palmyra to Damascus. People in Baghdad and Damascus must be considerably concerned with how the war is going. The Worldwide Caliphate is apparently well on the way to achieving its declared objective.
The leader of the religious believers, Caliph Abu Bakr ai-Baghdadi, seems on his way to fulfilling his declared ambitions. He aims at establishing the House of Peace throughout the world. A descendant of Muhammad, he is using the handbook Muhammad left behind to do that, and is following his example. His followers have also learned well, following the instructions to the letter. The Islamist Jihadists seem to be proving that their god, Allah, is as Supreme as they claim.
Many people believe al-Baghdadi is the Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer of Islam, who will appear at the same time as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Together, they will fight against the false Messiah, or the Antichrist. This belief is another example of the genius of Muhammad in tying the belief systems of Islam into those of Judaism and Christianity, to claim and supersede them. So far, no one seems to be claiming to be the returned Jesus Christ of the Second Coming. But the Mahdi is well underway with military successes that seem to back up his claims. Every victory means more Jihadists will be joining him to fight for Allah and his last and greatest Prophet, Muhammad. A religious war seems to appeal to many.
According to AlMonitor, the Senate Armed Services Panel has just held a hearing on the subject of the strategy to be followed against the Islamic State. It was stated that it would appear that now is the time to engage in combat. If the United States doesn’t lead, no one else steps up either. Panel Chairman, John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for a complete overhaul of US strategy.
According to an article in the Military Times, in the opinion of retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who was executive officer to retired Army General David Petraeus, in 2011 when the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq, they had just about defeated al Qaeda. The withdrawal led to the creation of the Islamic State. In his opinion, the only way to deal with the Islamic State is with “boots on the ground.”
What do you think about the present strategy of the U.S. against the Islamic State? Is the question about the Middle East for prospective candidates for the Presidency, “Did the withdrawal of troops from Iraq create the vacancy now filled by the Islamic State?” Ought the U.S. stay out of the Middle East?
Published in General
Don’t the good guys always win! I take great comfort from the knowledge that the United States has such a strong military force, willing to fight, and 350,000,000 guns out there in the hands of ordinary Americans who know how to use them. :)
“Ideologies” and “strategies” seem to mean the same thing, Dev, to the “little people”!
I hope you don’t mind if I quote you.
That’s the spirit, Simon! I LIKE it!
I have said in the past that young men ought to be given a desert region where they can play real war games with each other. I spoke too soon. We just need to look at the middle east to see they now have it.
So why do you think that it is that Americans are so “willing to fight” here, there, and everywhere while the Iraqi soldier won’t even fight to defend his own country?
I hear what you are saying, Simon, and it could look like that. The Iraqi military is composed of Shiite Persians. The Islamic State is composed of Sunni Arabs. In the 700s, the Sunni Arabs conquered the Persians. I wonder how far back history spreads its tentacles in time. Is there a genetic memory of that defeat? Has their similar religious beliefs got anything to do with it? Religious ideologies are powerful forces we disregard at our peril.
What if you don’t own a 3rd nation to which to send people? And what if they don’t want to go, even if you did?
No wonder Saudi Arabia is getting worried about what used to be friendly ally, the US. Does the President prefers Persians to Arabs?
Classical Hinduism would agree with you, Dev! Vedanta Hinduism would warn against stirring up Kali, the goddess of violence and war. She is beautiful, and good to have on your side, but be careful, the results of stirring up her violent side may rebound on you.
I would say you have put your finger right on the spot, Dev. This is what Muhammad recognized when he united the Arab tribes of his time. There lies his genius. He gave his people a whole belief system, based on their own basic Semitic beliefs, and a guidebook how to conquer and colonize people. He united the Arab tribes, his followers went on to create the largest Empire over most of the then known world. He really was an Arab Alexander the Great, or like the great Romans who built Rome.
If only Muslims could see him in this light, and celebrate his greatness for his time period. Unfortunately, the Qur’an is for all time and eternal, according to Muslims.
Lol, Zafar!
My problem with Muslims is I don’t know how far they take their belief in the Qur’an. I really would have to have them say to me they put it into the past, and it doesn’t affect their everyday life. But they can’t really do that, because if they take the Qur’an and Muhammad out of Islam, there is not too much left. They then become Jews or Christians in their belief systems.
Ayaan Hirst Ali, in her latest book, Heretic, talks about reforming Islam. Carla Powers writes in the Time magazine about why that is not too easy.
Good question, Simon! I do think Americans have been taught to love their country and to be prepared to fight in her interests. Could it also be because American men are still brought up to be men, and not to subdue their wonderfully assertive spirits? Or perhaps it is genetic?
My own thoughts are that we should directly arm the Kurdish YPG and Peshmerga. After initial missteps, both have proven tough in the long haul compared to the consistently awful Iraqi Army. It’s actually amazing to see how much territory ISIS has lost in northern Syria this year compared to gains elsewhere. Bizarrely, some of the most effective and fanatical anti-ISIS fighters are Marxist-Leninists.
In Iraq, I would prefer to see an independent Iraqi Kurdistan as well as an independent Assyria for the remaining Christians. Likely in Ninevah where they have formed their own militias.
The news from Palmyra is not too encouraging. This Reuters report of all the executions taking place there is horrific. It’s in the south, too close to Damascus.
It looks as if the partitioning of Iraq is already happening. How interesting that the Kurds who are the best fighters are Marxist-Leninists. One ideology against another.
Well of course Allah is winning. The conflict at this point is mainly Muslim against Muslim so how can he not?
To be more precise, it is the YPG that is basically a communist outfit. They are an offshoot of the Kurdish Worker’s Party. Iraqi Kurdistan had actually been a startling capitalist success story until the invasion by ISIS.
If my [expletive]ing Secretary of State was actually doing her job instead of just logging millions of mile on private jets, staying in the best 5-star hotels in every nation in the world, and collecting “donations” for her and her rapist husbands slush fund – then I would own at least one 3rd world nation (Haiti comes instantly to mind) where I could send these people. Then they don’t show up at the rally point/landing zone(LZ), and stay in their hell hole to become martyrs for Christ (this would be the Christians).
Haven’t read the comments. No, Allah is not winning. In fact, he will die out slowly as will all religions.
Classical Hinduism expresses the thought that everyone has to find their own way to their spirituality, and union with the Eternal Spirit, the Brahman. The end result is that mature people reach the stage where they no longer need any outside organization. They have reached the spiritual place where their spirit is united with the Brahman and they are at peace.
Pity Islam doesn’t see it this way!
A lot of Muslims would find it difficult to say that, because it implies (requires?) agreement that the only impact the Koran can have on every day life is a negative one. It’s like a leading question. If they actually believed that they probably wouldn’t be Muslims, would they?
My feeling is that the West got a lot nicer when the population got less religious and more sceptical about everything (including God), and Muslim countries probably would too – so I’m sort of in sympathy with your position, I think.
The response to this opinion from people of faith in the West, when talking about their own faith rather than someone else’s, has not been overwhelmingly positive. Perhaps ego about one’s own beliefs and culture is a human universal?
Not sure how you get there, Zafar.
The West hardly got “nicer” with the loss of faith. We have had probably the bloodiest century in the 20th – led by secular systems that attempted to replace God and Jesus with Man.
The common thread in the most repressive regimes is a lack of separation of church and state and a lack of freedom of religion and expression. Stalinists and Maoists attempted to impose atheism just as fundamentalist Islamic regimes attempt to impose medieval Islam. Does anyone else see some other parallels between Islamists and Marxist liberationists, such as criticism of the “materialistic” West?
I do not see evidence that actual secularism is any more prevalent in America than other places, the Muslim world included. No one knows what repressed people really think, because they are… repressed. In fact, I would argue that you see no more evil in America than anywhere in the world (witness ultra-pious monster Bin Laden with his porn stash living comfortably in the middle of ultra-pious Pakistan). There are probably just as many sincere believers in Las Vegas as there are in the same-sized Middle Eastern city.
No more criminalising private behaviour between consenting adults.
No more burning heretics at the stake.
No more wars of religion (too often blended with ethnicity).
No more crusades or cultural revolutions.
A lot more freedom, which I think is a good thing.
(Marxism and fascism function in some ways like faiths – just not deistic ones.)
You take all the fun out of robe-wearing!
It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make : -)
To the best of my knowledge, the Shia of Iraq are Arabs. They are friendly with Iran, but they prefer their own leaders. Shia have a history of being ground down by the Sunni – the founder of the Shia was Ali Hussein, the Prince of Martyrs, killed by the Sunni caliph.
There are so many points on this thread to which I’d like to reply, but instead of trying to do it point-by-point, I’d like to bring this article to everyone’s attention.
The non-partisan reality is that it will be decades before enough information is declassified for us really to understand why the coalition stood by as Ramadi fell. Whether this was a political decision or a military screw-up, I don’t know. None of us will know for a very long time. There will be leaks to the press that might give us a hint. Obviously, we’re getting a lot of spin about it (there was a sandstorm; the Iraqis don’t have the will to fight, and so forth). None of it makes sense, given the stakes, and I simply don’t understand it. The only way I could begin to understand it would be to look at documentary records that will be classified for a very long time. In strategic terms, it’s inexplicable–and an utter catastrophe.
What Soleimani said will sound entirely credible to everyone in the region, because it’s the most consistent and credible explanation of the facts:
It is not true–it is factually false–that if the United States fails to lead, no one else will step up. Iran has stepped up and will continue to do so. Every smaller group in the region, upon realizing that the United States is nowhere to be found, will understand that they have to cut a deal with Iran to survive. This will continue until one or the other great power–the United States or Iran–establishes hegemony over the region. Imagining that the YPG could save the region is like imagining that Copenhagen could conquer the rest of Europe–it’s just physically impossible. If ISIS overplays its hand and prematurely starts hitting Western targets on a very large scale, the US will be forced to act by public demand. Failing that, the bloodletting will continue until Iran establishes control.
If the Iraqi Army keeps retreating from fights in the Sunni areas could it be because the Govt in Baghdad doesn’t think these areas are worth the trouble they would be to keep in the long run? Would it be better off governing a smaller but more or less homogenous area in the South with a population that assents to its rule and which still has a whole lot of oil?
Okay, so this changing borders thing is not the preferred option for Turkey, Syria, Jordan, the United State or (big one) Saudi Arabia (ISIS’ natural target to the South), but might it be for the Baghdad Administration? And Iran?
Ramadi? Not worth the trouble? How do you have an Iraq without it? That’s 90 minutes from Baghdad–how do you have a secure capital if ISIS controls Ramadi?
You mean from Basrah to Baghdad and to heck with the rest? Basrah is Shi’a-dominated, so there wouldn’t be a homogenous population, and without Basrah, you’ve got almost no oil.