by Emile Nakhleh
Millions of words have been written about the rise, conquests, and savagery of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Both have declared an “Islamic State” in their areas although Boko Haram has not claimed the mantle of a successor to the Prophet Muhammad as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has in Greater Syria. The two groups are the latest in a string of terrorist organizations in the past two decades.
American and other Western media have raised the ISIS terror threat to unprecedented levels, and the press have extolled the group’s military prowess, financial acumen, and command of social media propaganda.
The beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff are the latest horrible manifestations of the group’s brutality. ISIS is now seen as a serious threat to the American and British homelands and new measures are being taken in both countries to combat the dangers it poses.
Although surprised at the rapid growth of ISIS, Western policymakers should not be bewildered by the rise of yet another terrorist group. In the past 20 years, the world has witnessed the emergence of al-Qaeda as a global jihadist group, Jama’a Islamiyya in Southeast Asia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in North Africa, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya, al-Shabab in Somalia, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a few more localized bands of terrorists across the greater Middle East.
In every case, Western countries described the groups as a “gathering threat” and mobilized friendly countries, including autocratic rulers, against the perceived dangers.
Policy and intelligence analysts spent untold hours and traveled thousands of miles tracking the movements of these groups and their leaders and writing briefs and reports about the nature of the threat.
Most of these analytic reports have focused on “current” issues. Only a meager effort has been expended on long-term strategic analysis of the context of radical and terrorist groups and their root causes. It’s as if we are doomed to fight yesterday’s wars with no time to look into the context that gives rise to these groups. President Barack Obama’s recent statement that his administration had no strategy to fight the ISIS menace in Syria epitomizes this analytical paralysis.
ISIS is primarily a threat to Arab countries, not to the United States and other Western countries. The more Sunni Arab states remain silent in the face of this pseudo-religious vulgarity, the sooner terrorism would be at their door. Arab society under the yoke of extremist Islamism must be addressed from within the region, not by American airstrikes or Western military intervention.
If the Islamic State expands beyond the Levant, it will plunge Arab societies into militancy, bloody conflicts, and depravity devoid of free thought, creativity, and economic prosperity.
The threat that Western societies could potentially face would come not from ISIS but from the hundreds of their young citizens who joined ISIS. These young jihadists, who hail from the US, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Australia, and other countries, have joined ISIS either as “walk-in” volunteers or as a result of ISIS’ sophisticated social media recruiting campaign. They left their seemingly comfortable lives for all kinds of political, psychological, religious, or ideological reasons to fight for a “cause” they are not terribly clear about.
If they survive the fighting, they would return home having been brainwashed against the perceived decadence of Western Christian societies and the imagined “purity” of their faith. Their imported emotional contradictions would drive some of them to relive their jihadist experience in the Levant by committing acts of violence and terrorism against their fellow citizens.
The so-called caliphate, whether in the Levant or West Africa, is a backward perversion of Sunni Islam that opposes modernity in all of its manifestations—interfaith dialogue, women’s education, minority rights, tolerance, and reason. A self-proclaimed successor to the Prophet Muhammad, al-Baghdadi’s Islamic State in the Syrian Desert is violating every principle of Muhammad’s Islamic State in Medina in the 7th century.
Some Bush-era neoconservatives and Republican hawks in the Senate who are clamoring for US military intervention in Syria seem to have forgotten the lessons they should have learned from their disastrous invasion of Iraq over a decade ago. Military action cannot save a society when it’s regressing on a warped trajectory of the Divine—ISIS’ proclaimed goal.
As long as Arab governments are repressive, illegitimate, sectarian, and incompetent, they will be unable to halt the ISIS offensive. In fact, many of these regimes have themselves to blame for the appeal of ISIS. They have cynically exploited religious sectarianism to stay in power.
If it is true that a young man is not radicalized and does not become a terrorist overnight and if it is true that a terrorist group does not develop in a vacuum, then it’s time to stand back and take a strategic look at the factors that drive ISIS and similar Sunni terrorist groups in the Arab world.
1. Intolerant Doctrine. Some Arab Sunni regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, continue to preach an intolerant religious Sunni ideology that denigrates not only other faiths but also Shia Islam. Christian religious places and educational institutions cannot operate freely in places like Saudi Arabia.
Much of the anger that has characterized the Islamization of Muslim societies in recent years has been directed against these institutions. This type of harassment is felt across the region, from Palestine to Saudi Arabia. What makes this reality especially sad is the fact that Christian institutions have been at the forefront of Arab educational renaissance since the 19th century.
The Sunni regimes’ benign neglect of the rapidly spreading Sunni violent ideology and its divisive sectarian policies has allowed ISIS to spread. This does not augur well for its survival. The Saudi brand of intolerant, narrow-minded Wahhabi-Salafi Sunni Islam is not much different from al-Baghdadi’s modern day caliphate.
The Saudis oppose ISIS because of its perceived threat to the regime, but they cannot disavow their theological worldview, which rejects Shia Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and denies women their rightful place as equal citizens. The rapidly spreading ISIS doctrine is making it a bit late for the Saudis and other Sunni regimes to act. Nor will the West be able to bail them out.
2. Arab Autocracy. Sunni Arab dictators have refused their peoples freedoms of speech, organization, political activism, innovation, and creativity. The three “deficits” of freedom, education, and women’s rights that Arab intellectuals identified in the Arab Human Development Report in 2002 are yet to be meaningfully addressed.
Politics is controlled by the powerful with no room for reason or compromise among the different stakeholders and centers of power in society. Those on top commit all kinds of dastardly deeds to stay in power, and those at the bottom are doomed to remain stuck in the proverbial “bottom one billion.” Regimes do not allow the meaningful separation of powers, checks and balances, and independent judiciaries to properly function. Control, fear, and co-optation remain the preferred tools of Arab dictators.
3. Hypocrisy of “Values.” President Obama has often invoked American values of liberty, human rights, equality, justice, and fairness as the underpinnings of American democracy and of “what makes us who we are.” Yet when Arab publics see Washington steadfastly supporting Arab dictators, who are the antithesis of American “values,” the United States comes across as hypocritical and untrustworthy.
The debates within Islam over whether the faith should return to its 7th century roots, as ISIS’s ruthlessness has shown, or leap into the 21st century modern world, as Turkey has demonstrated, should primarily concern Muslims. They and they alone are the ones to resolve this quandary. ISIS is a violent symptom of this tug of war between intolerant traditionalists and forward-looking reformists. The West should stay out of the debate.
Western security and law enforcement agencies should focus on their own citizens and track their would-be jihadists, but Western military aircraft should stay out of the skies of the Levant.
Oh my goodness Mr Nakhleh, where have you been? Hitting the nail on the head, so to speak, kudos to you sir. The first rational look at this situation that has come our way up to today. Yes, the U.S. needs to stay out of the debate as well as the sky’s too, as this is an Arab fight.
I might add, the U.S. needs to get out of being Israels backstop, no matter what they-the Israelis do-then maybe that situation might solve itself too. After all, Israel is part of the problem in the M.E., like it or not.
What the author seems to forget is that the West has two major interests in the Middle East: The oil supply and Israel. The growth of ISIS is certainly based on the reasons invoked, but the West wants to ensure that these two interests are not harmed. Therefore they will intervene at the demand of the trembling Sunnis leaders who, after spreading with billions of dollars their Wahabbi sectarian ideology, are now shocked that they have created a monster that threatens them.
Ideally the West should not intervene and let these reckless leaders pay a heavy price for their mistakes, but politics is no about giving moral lessons, it is about protecting economical interests. As long as the USA needs the oil and the money from the weak Gulf countries, it will intervene to protect even the worth dictator.
Empire created ISIS Emile it doesn’t want to “eradicate” it. All Washington wants is regime change within it, a new name and then a a propaganda makeover will occur in Empire media.
In Iraq ISIS will be contained by Kurds backed by Ankara and Exxon, (that means Washington) to the North and it will be blocked by the Sh’ia (Iraqi army) backed by Tehran to the South. They are not going anywhere. and once the oil is taken from them they will have lost their mojo.
If ISIS is smart they will bring most of their troops to Syria where Assad is more vulnerable. Washington’s intervention there might well be helpful to stop them. But Empire has put itself in a rhetorical bind at home.
While Western sheeple can be conditioned to think yesterdays manufactured enemy is today their friend they do need a bit of time to adjust. From Assad being the Hitler du jour yesterday to the innocent crying for help today is a lot for them to swallow.
Here in the UK we are beginning to receive reports that young male jihadists are beginning to talk about returning home from the ranks of the IS militia because they are concerned that their conflict with other Muslim/Sunni groups may mean that if they die fighting these other groups they will not qualify as martyrs and will not go to paradise and their 72 virgins.
I do not think they will get much of a sympathetic hearing from anyone here in the UK.
I agree fully with the three factors you have outlined above but would add one more.
I am a humanist.
I believe all people who believe literally in religious dogma are by definition clinically insane.
The behaviour of these young IS jihadists appears to prove my stance regarding religion.
In my opinion, the only way to combat religious extremism is to combat religious belief.
We should certainly talk about the historic roles of religions in our schools.
How else can young people gain an understanding as to why the world is the way it is?
However, religious proselytization should not be allowed under any circumstances.
School curricular should be completely secular and robustly challenge religious beliefs.
If school pupils and students are told that there are beliefs which do not recognise the existence of supernatural non-entities such as gods, angels, demons, fairies, etc., then this might just stop them soaking up extremist religious propaganda and becoming radicalised.
One query I always make to wannabe jihadists is how many of bin Ladens sons became one?
It is a rhetorical question; they rarely know the correct answer, which is: None.
Is it not the case that Obama has set out to be – and largely succeeded – the first US President to make the US energy independent?
Today, Texas sweet crude oil price stands at around $95 per barrel. Historically low, even though there are considerable uncertainties over deliveries from Iraq and Russia.
After “Israel” torpedoed the Kerry peace talks, I think we can all detect a change in atmosphere in the White House towards Netanyahu and the National Judaists.
Why did the Zionists really stop attacking Gaza? Was it White House pressure?
Why have the Palestinians announced an unprecedented three year period for ending the occupation if not with the encouragement of the White House and State Department?
Comments are closed.