It is difficult for an atheist to write about what appears to be, in part, the paroxysm of a religious anachronistic aberration. On the other hand, denial of "fact" is not a sustainable attitude for a free spirit. Lately Paris and San Bernardino speak louder than words...and prayers.
The violence waged by Islamic Jihadists has no boundaries. It becomes more difficult by the hour to differentiate between good--if there is room for such a thing in a demented storyline--and bad Islam. First, it is becoming absurd to try to dislodge the better parts of the Koran from the bad ones. Secondly, too many Imans talk more often as the heirs of the heinous than as the interpreters of what might still be worth rescuing. Muslim worshippers can be brainwashed rather than enlightened. Third, the silence or absence of indisputable condemnation of unspeakable mayhem is "scandalous". Muslims are too often shy to recognize the evil in their midst. As a result, the good ones (the majority) are taken hostage by the radical ones.
The West finds itself in a Gordian situation. It would prefer to avoid any sort of profiling. Intelligence is called upon but it does not always work and the sleeper cells multiply in a society which rests on pluralism and diversity. The courtship of the enemy with death is alien to a Western mindset which is bewildered by the rising nihilism.
The "caliphate" gave ISIL an added raison d'etre. Contrary to Al Quaeda, ISIL has recreated the myth of a global caliphate and was also able to consolidate a land grab in Syria and Iraq. The two should not be confused. Territory belongs to the praxis/logistics while the caliphate appeals to history/logos. One is a concrete basis for commerce (?), regrouping, training, services, marriage bureau (yes); the other is a claim to the former Muslim commonwealth, which spanned an area from Spain to India and came as close as Vienna.
ISIL is not going to hide in the mountains of Afghanistan. It chooses the "plains". It is well organised, with a mastery of social media. It does not play defense, it chooses offence. It does not suggest past grievances, it claims future appropriation.
The West bombs what is no longer bomb-able and this strategy looks almost pathetic, given the dichotomy which exists between an organized coalition and a mutant adversary. History does not repeat itself in the same ways. While there are similarities between past situations, when an "advanced" power falls victim to an enemy wrongly perceived as inferior, the comparison stops there. Former wars of liberation rested mostly on rational principles such as Marxism, anti-colonialism. Here the main factor is a religious fanatical strand which is able to sell death for an aftermath of virgins and pleasure. How sick can a creed be?
Instead of fighting the abstract, one has to consider going for the "jugular". Such a move cannot be done ex abrupto. A US diplomatic offensive is needed, mostly with the Sunni states and with the permanent members of the Security Council. Iran, Israel, Turkey must be part of the equation. So must Assad, the Palestinians and the non-states (by way of a third party). ISIL must be hit where it hurts most, in its territorial claim. The territory it covers needs to be taken away by all means. Its de facto capital must be pulled out from under its control, as Berlin was taken from Hitler. ISIL must be rolled back to the bunker of history, by all conceivable means. If informed and consulted, too many Arab states will rejoice and the disenfranchised left in our midst will choke on their own anger. I fully realize the complexity and also the backlash, but at times one needs action. Leave the soliloquy for the matinee audience.
This not about regime change or about a search for what is "not", as was the case in Iraq or to a lesser extent in Libya. This is about giving the fatal blow. This needs fast consultation with the Arab League, the OAU, NATO, revised rules of engagement, and has to end in the destruction of Raqqah (in Syria) as a first step. Symbols legitimate, their destruction hastens the end.
The discussion in the United States lacks direction. The "left" injects gun control, while the right--in the first place the Evangelicals--tries to import other issues such as abortion, climate change, the overall right to bare arms, immigration, into the debate. The current times require clarity of purpose, not some anti-intellectual confusion. The timid hesitations at the top create an opening for grievances and innuendos which only debilitate the argument.
The President was supposed to make a transformational entree in the conversation. His address to the nation on December 6 left everybody confused. He spent more time talking about the "good" Muslims (most are) than about the heart of the matter. The strategy of the Administration remains unchanged, while proven ineffective. The broad-brush therapy, wherein gun control (a separate priority) is smuggled into a larger issue, is counter-productive. At the end of the day, the Oval Office speech fell flat. The strategy (?) remains the same, the worries unattended, the priorities "on sick leave". The Americans were served the old professorial abstract Obama remedy, analytical to a point, ineffectual as can be the case. They hoped for a "reboot". What they got was the same old dish, warmed-up for the occasion. The President convinced few and disappointed most. ISIL had a good night!
No comments:
Post a Comment