2015 June 10 Wednesday
If Bin Laden Was Still Alive ISIS Would Respect al-Qaida
Ever feel nostalgic for the good old days? The intellectual godfather of al-Qaida laments how ISIS disrepects al-Qaida and behaves savagely. If only Osama Bin Laden was around to proclaim the Caliphate is a fraud things would be different.
Both men are particularly appalled, they said, by the way Isis has used their scholarship to cloak its savagery in ideological legitimacy, to gain recruits and justify its battle with al-Qaida and its affiliates. “Isis took all our religious works,” Maqdisi said. “They took it from us – it’s all our writings, they are all our books, our thoughts.” Now, Abu Qatada said, “they don’t respect anyone”.
Such impudent behaviour, the two men agreed, would never have been accepted in the days when Bin Laden was alive. “No one used to speak against him,” Maqdisi lamented. “Bin Laden was a star. He had special charisma.”
Maqdisi's buddy Abu Qatada agrees with him. At least they've got each other to sympathize with.
Meanwhile in the ISIS zone the supply of female slaves is glutting the market and driving down prices: Isis slave markets sell girls for 'as little as a pack of cigarettes', UN envoy says. No wonder ISIS doesn't have a problem recruiting lots of young men to fight for Jihad.
America is too politically correct to handle ISIS. What Russia ought to do: offer to put together a mercenary force to destroy ISIS. Get Iraq and Iran to fund it. I bet ISIS could be destroyed for $10 billion. Greg Cochran thinks 10,000 mercs would be enough to destroy ISIS. Iran is therefore being very cost ineffective in its strategy in Syria where it spends $6 per year to prop up Assad.
By Randall Parker at 2015 June 10 06:50 PM
"Iran is therefore being very cost ineffective in its strategy in Syria where it spends $6 per year to prop up Assad."
That should be $6 billion, not $6.
"Greg Cochran thinks 10,000 mercs would be enough to destroy ISIS."
I think he was riffin' on Xenophon's Anabasis. (I get the impression he's pretty sarcastic.)
Business ours not. Real war muslims immigrating to West. ISIS one day U.S. Republicans support. Waging war of extermination against us. Mideast smoke and mirrors. Eyes on prize.
RP: "Greg Cochran thinks 10,000 mercs would be enough to destroy ISIS."
The destruction of Al Qaeda by the US military created ISIS. Similarly, the destruction of ISIS would almost certainly create an even more virulent Jihad movement. The true leadership of the Jihad movement is not a fixed hierarchy of commanders but a school with a textbook. The ideology written in their text also includes a metaphysical philosophy that promises immortality to those who sacrifice their physical lives in the pursuit of Jihad.
Since it is estimated that there are approximately 50,000 ISIS fighters, the 10,000 mercs that Greg Cochran's calculation requires, seems to indicate that Greg Cochran's merc calculus mathematically equates 1 merc to 5 ISIS fighters. I agree with this calculation, but in the aftermath of the destruction of ISIS, if just 1 % of the 1,000,000,000 Muslims become the fighters of the future AIME (Apocalyptic Islamic Martyrs Empire), this would mean that the resulting 10,000,000 AIME fighters can only be countered by 2,000,000 mercs. But the mercs have very high annual salaries, maybe $100,000 per merc. Also, each merc would require a lot of expensive high tech gear, which might cost another $100,000 per year, and so the 2 million mercs will probably require $400 billion per year. As if this were not enough, for every dead AIME fighter, there will be another who will replace him within a year. This means a perpetual war that will cost $400 billion per year, which would easily add up to $4 trillion within a decade.
But I am not saying that Greg Cochran is wrong: already the trade deficit of the US is over $500 billion, and therefore the freedom-loving Americans would gladly pay the $400 billion annual merc surtax if the other alternative is to live as dhimmis under Sharia rule.
Two recent articles that I came across recently and you may find of interest:
Ex-US Intelligence Officials Confirm: Secret Pentagon Report Proves US Complicity In Creation Of ISIS
"[A]ccording to leading American and British intelligence experts, the previously declassified Pentagon report confirms that the West accelerated support to extremist rebels in Syria, despite knowing full well the strategy would pave the way for the emergence of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS)."
The Geopolitics of American Global Decline
"Mackinder argued [PDF] that the future of global power lay not, as most British then imagined, in controlling the global sea lanes, but in controlling a vast land mass he called “Euro-Asia.” By turning the globe away from America to place central Asia at the planet’s epicenter, and then tilting the Earth’s axis northward just a bit beyond Mercator’s equatorial projection, Mackinder redrew and thus reconceptualized the world map."
"Lacking the geopolitical vision of Mackinder and his generation of British imperialists, America’s current leadership has failed to grasp the significance of a radical global change underway inside the Eurasian land mass. If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly, as Sir Halford Mackinder predicted on that cold London night in 1904, 'the empire of the world would be in sight.'"
Why the Hell should Russia supply a mercenary force to help the west?
In case you didn't know, the USA and the EU are doing their damndest to destroy Russia and the Russian economy.
Wolf-Dog - ISIS is not going to march into Peoria.(If they march into Texas I will rely on the Waco Police Department to save my ass.) Mexico is a far bigger threat to this country than ISIS.
aandrews: "Lacking the geopolitical vision of Mackinder and his generation of British imperialists, America’s current leadership has failed to grasp the significance of a radical global change underway inside the Eurasian land mass. If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly, as Sir Halford Mackinder predicted on that cold London night in 1904, 'the empire of the world would be in sight.'"
You have mentioned a very good article and a very important new perspective. The classical axiom of geopolitics newsletters like Stratfor is that transportation of goods by ships in rivers and oceans is cheaper than transportation on land, but with the advent of high-tech trains that China is in the process of mastering, this concept is becoming less important. If China can successfully cut a political deal with Central Asian republics and Russia to access these natural resources, it will only be a matter of a few decades to build a very effective and economical train network for the transportation of raw materials and finished goods, essentially making ships far less important.
Russia does not want Assad's government to fall in Syria. So Russia would like to see ISIS in Syria destroyed.
Well, do you expect China will invade neighbors? I expect China will use carrots and sticks to make neighbors not work against China's interests. But I'm not expecting China to occupy Burma or Siberia or Kazakhstan.
What odds would you give that the US is actually going to take any effective action to get rid of ISIS? I would give very low odds. It seems like with our resources, there's got to be some ways to get rid of something as fundamentally self-defeating and medevial as ISIS appears to be, but the last couple decades haven't demonstrated any ability on our part to do anyting more complicated than spending lots of money and killing a lot of people, a few of whom actually needed killing.
God help us if we ever face an opponent that's not manned by media-happy crazies and sheep-f**king illiterate peasants.
If it is true that ISIS emerged as a much more virulent successor to Al Qaeda after we defeated the latter, then maybe it's better not to destroy ISIS because if the same pattern holds, then the successor to ISIS will probably be even more virulent. Furthermore, demographically Jihad is a far greater danger to the EU and Russia than the US (10 % of France as well as Russia happens to be Muslim), and since both the Europeans and Russians are ingrates who don't appreciate the US, maybe it is a good idea to let them face the danger, so that maybe they will learn who their real ally was in the past. Finally, even if ISIS does manage to take over all the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the US might still have enough oil thanks to fracking, before the electric cars are ready.