Monday, June 22, 2015

ISIS: Depends on What "is" is . . .

ISIS Child Soldiers
Google Images

I recently read two different articles with very similar advice on how to deal with ISIS, i. e., the Islamic State. Clint Watts, writing for Geopoliticus: The FPRI Blog, delineates "Four Key Drivers For Eroding ISIS" (June 15, 2015), and Frank R. Gunter, writing for FPRI E-Notes, offers the Islamic State a stark choice, "ISIL Revenues: Grow or Die" (June 2015).

Both agree that to survive, the IS needs to continue expanding. Therefore, says Watts:
"Let Them Rot" . . . [i.e., use] containment to establish conditions by which ISIS destroys itself from within . . . . To this point, it appears that the U.S.-led coalition, either by choice or more by default, is pursuing a modified "Let Them Rot" strategy. But officials and the public grow impatient while the media reinforces the belief [that] ISIS is the next al Qaeda - a misguided one in my view. The headlines will lead you to believe that ISIS can only be defeated by a major military campaign. And counterinsurgency proponents are likely drooling for another opportunity to employ their beloved Field Manual 3-24. But defeating ISIS via external force will be a long battle, and one that perpetuates the jihadi belief that the West denies their vision. The U.S. should seek to destroy the idea of an Islamic State altogether, and to do that ISIS must fail by its own doings, not from outside forces. The recipe of the the "Let Them Rot" strategy should be followed: contain ISIS advances, starve them of resources, fracture their ranks, and exploit through alternative security arrangements.
Similarly, says Gunter:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL [i.e., the Islamic State]) is the ultimate predatory state. It has been able to obtain vast amounts of financial and other resources in a relatively short period of time by theft or extortion. However, its revenues are mostly unsustainable. As a result, like other extreme predatory states, it must either rapidly expand or slowly die. Coordinated activities by the anti-ISIL coalition can accelerate this loss of revenues and substantially weaken the ISIL proto-state . . . . [T]his financial unsustainability is a critical vulnerability of ISIL . . . . [The Islamic State] will respond to the expected loss of revenue. They may ratchet up the level of extortion in ISIL-occupied territory, accepting a rise in the hostility of the occupied population in order to obtain a short-term boost in revenues . . . . Another option is that ISIL may execute raids outside its current territory intended not to permanently seize cities or towns but rather to . . . . steal everything of value . . . . and then return to ISIL-controlled territory. This possibility emphasizes the most important element of an anti-revenue strategy[, namely,] . . . . deny ISIL any further geographic expansion in order not only to prevent humanitarian tragedy but also to thwart the looting of banks, farms, and businesses . . . . The ISIL proto-state must either grow or die. Preventing that growth will strangle ISIL.
Interestingly, Watts notes that the US-led operation against ISIS is - whether by chance or design - pursuing the right policy, but success might take some time. The time taken is precisely what most concerns me. I look at that photo above and wonder what sort of jihadi we face in the future.

Some of us will live to see what IS is further on down the line . . .

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 6:07 AM, Blogger Carter Kaplan said...

There is more to this situation than I understand. Put it that way.

 
At 6:30 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I guess there's always more than anyone understands.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 1:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find photos of White supremacist groups more frightening than photos of little Islamists in training. The former are more numerous, very well armed, and established in most US states. An unarmed American is more likely to be killed by an angry loner or a police officer than by ISIS. Being able to put threats in context, compare them to other threats, assess the cost effectiveness of strategies, and factor in the opportunity cost of investing in strategies aimed at one threat at the expense of not addressing others is way, way beyond the ken of most people. An unhealthful diet and inadequate daily physical activity pose a much greater threat to my survival than ISIS, and I can control those things, the former involving an opportunity cost of money not spent on other goods and services, the latter an opportunity cost of time not spent on other activities. Wars cost money, and based on all the information I've read about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems our tax dollars could be much more wisely spent here at home investing in our human, natural, and capital resources. IMO, the single best informed, credible source on the wars is retired Army officer, political scientist, and author Andrew Bacevich, whose respected views get published in progressive and conservative media. If you're unfamiliar with his work, here is a good place to start:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/andrew-j-bacevich/

The quality of the Atlantic is somewhat inconsistent, but its coverage of the wars is decent, in particular this highly acclaimed Feb. 2015 dissection of ISIS by Graeme Wood. The big takeaway is that ISIS is a hybrid of Islamist foot soldiers and frontmen being used by Saddam's Sunni military and intelligence officers to regain regional power stripped from them by Paul Bremer. ICYMI:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Sonagi

 
At 1:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's try again with properly formatted links:

Andrew Bacevich at the American Conservative

What ISIS Wants

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Carter Kaplan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10:52 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Let's keep our interactions polite, especially where we disagree.

I'll interact more when I am feeling well - I've come down with a stomach virus.

Jeffery Hodges

@ @ @

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get well soon!

Sonagi

 
At 8:42 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

"The big takeaway is that ISIS is a hybrid of Islamist foot soldiers and frontmen being used by Saddam's Sunni military and intelligence officers to regain regional power."

Interesting. I'd been thinking along the same lines. Even so, the Baathists might have trouble dismounting that tiger.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I find photos of White supremacist groups more frightening than photos of little Islamists in training. The former are more numerous, very well armed, and established in most US states."
Palpable bogshite. Are they more numerous than ISIS? No. Are they as well armed as ISIS? NO. Are they established in US states? Well, yes, because that's where they are from.
"An unarmed American is more likely to be killed by an angry loner or a police officer than by ISIS."
And by an American serial killer, an American housewife, or an American pie. Because those things are in America where, as yet, ISIS aren't much.
"An unhealthful diet and inadequate daily physical activity pose a much greater threat to my survival than ISIS."
It's all me me me with you, bud. Forget about that "little Islamist", her family, their culture going back millenia, etc. Just you eat well. And get plenty of exercise!
You'll need it to outrun those pestilential angry loners and police officers...

Timothy

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

"Palpable bogshite"? That's a new one for me, so new as to be inoffensive. Maintaining this blog's really great for my vocabulary.

Still, let's make sure to stay polite (not 'poolite' - a typo of mine inspired this new word, meaning an "excrementally light insult").

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 

Post a Comment

<< Home