How to defeat ISIS? First, don't fall into the 9/11 trap

Maybe you saw Obama-Hollande's joint speech today about ISIS?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/24/457224374/trying-to-build-robust-coalition-against-isis-hollande-arrives-in-washington

I think a recent poll showed that like 23% of Americans approve of how Obama has been handling ISIS so far. But his "don't do stupid shit" (aka don't make things worse) strategy takes a while to bear fruit, and most Americans lack the patience/long view to appreciate that. I think that's preferable to the alternative (the Bush way), and most in the media/politics never consider the lives and treasure saved (and diplomatic crises avoided) by Obama not engaging in a knee-jerk aggressive action. The French are all on board for whatever forceful response Hollande has in the works (they've already flown like 800 sorties against ISIS since 11/13), because like the US after 9/11, I guess people need the catharsis of knowing that you've swiftly hit back at the enemies who just surprised and hurt you.

Kerry seems optimistic that a "ceasefire" can be reached between the Assad gov't and the "moderate" resistance groups, if global powers can apply pressure on the Syrian players that they influence. NATO is reaching out to Russia to help, but I don't think Iran is at the table. If an agreement can be forged, then all parties can "unite" to take down ISIS. While that would be superior to the status quo, and would probably somewhat reduce suffering and the refugee crisis in the region, beating ISIS militarily is not the endgame. New ISIS'es will spring up even after we're all dead. It's just a matter of when/where the conditions are right for them to rise up (and it's in no short supply: corrupt gov'ts, wealth inequality, uneducated Muslim populace, marginalized Muslim immigrants, Islamophobia, provocative/aggressive Western foreign policies, etc.).

How about we consider other ways to beat ISIS? Whether or not it's true, there was an idea circulating that Osama wanted to use 9/11 to draw the US into a protracted Crusader-vs-Jihadist ground conflict in the Middle East that would serve as a great recruiting beacon and a means of sapping US power/influence in the region. Regardless of his grand plans, that is what happened anyway. Leaders like Bush and Blair fell into the trap - well "fell" sounds like an accident, they more like proudly leapt into the trap.

Terrorists can't beat conventional forces/gov'ts straight up - that's why they're terrorists. They win by provocation and propaganda: magnifying their influence/impact/perception from the victims' response to isolated terror attacks. Even 100 coordinated 9/11s would not bring down the US regime. It would be painful, but we would eventually recover. What Al Qaeda did on 9/11 had a huge multiplier effect for them. It triggered an increased dislike of Muslims by many Western peoples, which marginalized Muslim immigrants and drove thousands of them to militancy (more in Europe and Asia than the Americas). It triggered the US/NATO to invade or increase military presence in several Muslim nations, which upset the local populace and gave Jihadists the opportunity to launch thousands of new attacks on Crusader targets. We tortured and brutally killed thousands of Muslims (many innocent) - which was a gift-wrapped Xmas present to Osama.

So one historic terror attack (9/11) spawned thousands of other terror events, trillions of Western dollars wasted, and thousands of Westerners dead (and the creation of new terror groups like ISIS). Talk about ROI for Osama. Yes, Al Qaeda was decimated in the process, but that is compatible with their nihilist-martyr worldview, and their ranks will be replenished as long as the prevailing Crusader-Jihadist entrenched global hostility remains. It's now harder to execute new attacks against the US, but there are no shortage of Western soft targets to go after in less secure parts of the world like Africa and Turkey.

A successful terror movement depends on the terrorized power to freak out, overreact, and shoot themselves in the foot. We should learn from last decade and not grant ISIS the same benefit. ISIS wants us to be meaner to Muslims living in the West (pushing them away from our values and closer to ISIS types), to block the escape of moderate Muslims and desperate refugees from the Mideast, and of course to put vulnerable Crusader boots on the ground that they can launch new attacks against. Basically, ISIS loves the GOP agenda in response to the 11/13 attacks. This is when we need to think with our brains and not our balls (or our panic/fears). Yes, inaction is frustrating as ISIS gloats, but a short-term pain is worth a long-term victory - especially when you consider the alternative that I've just described.

Western reactions to the ISIS Paris attacks

And so we have to, each of us, do our part [for the refugee crisis]. And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution -- that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. 


-President Obama


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey


http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/congress-fights-over-refugees-isis-strategy/


The predictable right wing knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks is still upsetting. Increase gov't surveillance powers, shut down mosques, close Schengen borders, block Muslims and/or Syrians from getting refugee status. And then there's all the discussion about how to crush ISIS.


Let's remember that MOST of the attackers from 11/13 were already on European security watch lists, because they went to the Middle East (allegedly to fight for ISIS) and then returned to Europe. That should have been a red flag, like "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." But like with 9/11, info was not shared effectively across nations and agencies. So while we do have to blame the attackers, we also shouldn't forget that the security infrastructure that was supposed to protect the French seemed to fail. They don't need extra powers and fewer Muslims, they just need to better monitor the high-risk persons that have already been flagged by normal methods.


Even "liberal" Senator Feinstein and others have called for tech companies to give the gov't backdoor keys into their encrypted systems. I thought Snowden convinced us that such access will not make us safer - many false positives and civil rights violation risks, and no evidence that attacks were prevented. Also, if the gov't warehouses backdoors into all major web services, then that is a huge gold mine for hackers to focus on (and the gov't doesn't have a great track record of preventing thefts). If we need a police-security state in order to be/feel "safe", then maybe we have to question whether this is the right society to live in.


But the worst reaction relates to the demonizing of refugees, IMO. Just because one major attack occurred directly from the Syrian and Iraq conflicts (which have gone on for over 10 years combined), now all of a sudden the refugees are the problem? The US has settled about 2K Syrian refugees in total. Even if they were all bad apples and killed 10 Americans each, that would still be less that the yearly pre-existing gun violence in America (or auto deaths). Where is the furor and urgency over the gun and car makers (and their lax regulators) - the real mass murderers?


So after one Paris attack (assuming other major attacks are not imminent or fairly mature in their planning), now the refugees are public enemy #1? But that is the bogeyman politics of xenophobia and intolerance. And let's remember that while the casualties in Paris were horrific, that number of people die at the hands of ISIS about every day in Iraq-Syria. Yet our outrage and hysteria are more muted (or nonexistent) when it's Mideast towns getting bombed and Muslims getting senselessly murdered.


Lastly, ISIS attacked Russian and French targets partly because those nations attacked them first. I'm fairly sure that Russian and NATO air strikes killed some ISIS "innocents" who were not combatants too (maybe the families of ISIS fighters, locals who unfortunately live in ISIS territory, or whatnot). ISIS is not attacking Burma or Chile. While we can't let them intimidate us into isolationism and denial of their threat, we have to acknowledge that if we choose to wage war on them, they will not appreciate that and try to hurt us back. If our societies don't want to pay that price, then we shouldn't get involved. Or do we expect that just because we're the "good guys" that we should be able to easily wipe our our enemies abroad and not incur any pains in the process?


Maybe since the Iranian Revolution, this "clash of civilizations" between "Jihadists and Crusaders" feels more and more like an irrational blood feud than a traditional strategic geopolitical conflict. As as we know from history, blood feuds are messier, protracted, and with more senseless losses on both sides.

"Why would ISIS attack Paris?"

http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/14/9735512/paris-attacks-isis-why

Obviously the events in Paris are sickening, and our thoughts are with those affected.

If you happened to read this thread from Feb (wow, time flies and I think most Western leaders believed ISIS would be finished by now), G Woods felt that ISIS was not that concerned with attacking the West vs. solidifying their caliphate in the Mideast and carrying out their apocalyptic vision. However, recent events may have motivated ISIS to change their tune, or Woods was wrong from the start.

One factor could be ISIS' "competition" with Al-Qaeda for recruiting and waging violence against "the enemies of Islam". While many have come to Iraq/Syria for the allure of joining ISIS ranks and fighting enemies on Muslim lands, maybe it is a sexier recruiting tool if ISIS brazenly attacks the homelands of its enemies or other soft targets - to a lot of media coverage (they are recently implicated in the Russia plane bombing and suicide attacks in Lebanon). While their focus is still fighting enemies in Iraq and Syria, it seems plausible that they would allocate some attn/resources towards overseas plots.

Which leads to the second point - maybe ISIS has found that "victory" in Iraq-Syria is not within its grasp, and it's getting harder and harder to hold onto land and withstand constant coalition air attacks (especially with Russia now directly supporting Assad, although it has not targeted ISIS much if at all until the Egypt bombing). But now that ISIS has supposedly maddened the bear, they might be in for a tough slog with NATO and Russian air forces gunning for them. They are believed to desire a face-to-face showdown with Crusaders on their home turf (like the Mujahadeen/Taliban in Afghanistan), but it's possible that they bit off more than they can chew. Though as we already know from several past wars, bombing alone won't defeat a foreign army (but it might bring them to the bargaining table, as in the case of Serbia), and I doubt that we will see boots on the ground even after the Paris attack. Even if we do successfully invade a-la-9/11, it may not "defeat" ISIS. Their key members will melt into the populace, just like the Ba'athists and AQI leaders did last decade. We will eventually leave, the gov't we put in place will be a mess, and an ISIS-type movement will rise up again in the chaos. "Defeating ISIS" is just a GOP campaign slogan at this point, though of course I hope I am wrong.

The most tragic part of this is that one of the Paris attackers seems to have had a Syrian passport that was stamped in Greece as part of refugee asylum. Yes, there were concerns earlier that terrorists were infiltrating the West as refugees. But one known example out of millions of deserving refugees does not make the security junkies right. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, but we didn't do anything to that country. We made immigration/visas tougher, and maybe that is a valid thing to do with Syrians now, but we didn't close our doors to them 100%. I hope we remember it is possible to be humane and give help to refugees, while also maintaining tight security re: who we grant asylum and how they are monitored once accepted.

Sure, conservative leaders on both sides of the pond are predictably "blaming" the EU's open door policy (it is hardly that), or the refugees themselves, for the Paris attacks, but they're missing the bigger point. ISIS wants Europe to close its doors, so that the masses have nowhere to flee to. It makes ISIS stronger and scarier - is that what we want to enable? I'm not saying we should accept our current policies and feel that everything is fine (e.g. better internal monitoring of at least fighting age male refugees is needed), but we shouldn't play into ISIS' hand either. Remember that 99.99% of the refugees hate ISIS and are fleeing from them. Do we want to cut them off, and force them into potentially serving or supporting ISIS against their will at home? Do we want to risk their families getting radicalized and recruited because they were unable to flee?

Attack at Charlie Hebdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATVidAh81g

I just don't get it, why does an almighty being and his prophet need you (the gunmen I mean) to avenge their honor? If he really didn't like their Muslim jokes, can't he just use his power to smite them? Why does he need to wait for a few young men to plot and execute a cowardly attack, years after the Danish cartoons? And of all the "threats to Islam", is Charlie Hebdo really the most pressing one? At least I give ISIS and Al Qaeda more credit for going after corrupt dictators and NATO, who have killed Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. Not that I am supporting those groups and their actions either.

I think that just demonstrates the logical bankruptcy of militant religiosity (Islamic or otherwise). So god needed some inbred, corrupt monarchs to spend a ton of resources (thereby neglecting the poor and sick) to amass armies of rapists, murderers, and pillagers to retake Jerusalem on his behalf? God delivered the Jews out of Egypt with a bunch of plagues/"miracles", yet now he is counting on the IDF to use its warplanes and bulldozers to make sure all of ancient Judea is under Jewish control? I don't think religious leaders ever take the time to question how utterly ridiculous these concepts sound. If an elected public official were to say such things (without draping himself in the flag of faith), he would be laughed off stage.

I suppose freedom of expression means that we must fight to the death to permit the most despicable among us to engage in the most ugly speech known to man, and damn the consequences. But that is like a 2nd Amendment supporter feeling compelled to defend the most perverse uses of guns possible. I think we can love freedom without making a travesty out of it.

Probably Charlie Hebdo was fairly tame in the grand scheme of things - they weren't that blasphemous and they definitely weren't hatemongers. But I really wish there was a way to defend freedom without protecting the most irresponsible beneficiaries of that freedom. Like we would oppose any sort of bigotry and persecution of course, but if a party "incites" anger/conflict from unwise behavior, well then - they made their bed and they can lay in it. We obviously don't want to see them killed, but we are not going to risk more lives to protect them. It's like if you violate the terms of your insurance, you void your policy and coverage.

I know it's not so simple, but I don't see the point in risking a lot to protect some fringe uses of freedom by a minority that may not represent the general interests and opinions of the public. I don't think Charlie Hebdo is a fringe case, but maybe "The Interview" was - a crappy film that added no value to society, and we have thousands of other films to take its place.

----

Regarding "what were they thinking?" type questions towards religious fanatics there is a quote "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" or something similar.  Logic has no place in a fanatical religious organization.  Sad but true.

The other thing is I REALLY REALLY don't like the idea you are pushing that annoying, inconvenient, ugly, etc uses of freedom of speech are somehow less worth protecting.  The ounce of legitimacy this brings to the crazy (as in literally crazy) people who think it is ok to kill someone bothers me but it also smells an awful lot like the first step on a slippery slope.  Look at abortion for example.  A legal right of women that, in some states, has walked its way back to practically illegal under the guise of women's health and safety.  That is how rights are taken from us, one step at a time, slowly.

So if we don't have people who stretch comfort in the other direction then the fanatics and the extremes of the viewpoints get to keep pushing the line.  Already no major network will show/print images of Mohammed (CNN took down the cartoon the Titanic showed earlier today, southpark episode still not shown on comedy central, etc etc).  

---

That is a pretty good quote, thx for sharing. How do we "unteach" religious extremism and fundamentalism then? They have some "Jihadi rehab" in Afghanistan - not sure how successful they've been. Sometime folks didn't volunteer for extremism, but were pushed in that direction by others. For some stories about NK defectors or Mormon cult escapists, what seemed to mentally "set them free" was the truth and asking questions. So logic has a part in that. Those folks were brainwashed at some point, but their experiences and thoughts got them out of it. It's probably not easy though.

I do feel that some speech is inherently more "valuable" than others. The Pentagon Papers and Declaration of Independence were subversive, maybe "illegal" publications. So are child porn and neo-Nazi materials (in some nations). I just think it's more reasonable to ask journalists and others to put their lives on the line to protect the ideas in documents like the DOI and PP (and make sure the world knows of them), rather than the other type. Think about the cop assigned to guard Charlie Hebdo who was murdered - is it much comfort to his family that he died protecting their right to make religious cartoons? I wouldn't want my loved ones to die protecting a porn peddler or neo-Nazi. But for the brave folks who risked/gave their lives for civil and labor rights, or for blowing the whistle on gov't/corporate crimes, at least their sacrifices led to greater justice and living conditions for all.

It's not like we have absolute freedom of speech now, and that Muslims, NK, and bleeding-heart liberals are slowly chipping away at it. We already can't threaten or slander people, we can't lie about some products, we can't pitch stocks without a license, etc. Maybe it's because the potential harm from speech like that outweighs the loss of freedom from prohibiting it. Societies make trade-offs all the time; I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but what degree of prohibited speech should we be comfortable with? I do think blasphemous speech should be legal. But if such speech has a high probability to elicit a violent reaction from extremists, maybe it is in the public interest to consider restrictions. Maybe that is the crazies holding us hostage and we cowardly agree to censorship, or maybe it's just prudence.

If we hold firm and protect free speech, are we prepared to also protect the people who may be at risk? Because we can't be everywhere at once; some terrorists are well trained, patient, and know how to exploit soft targets. So if we believe in free speech, we have an obligation to oppose extremism and dissuade people from using violence to express their anger and get even. But hate speech is still speech, so where does that leave us? Seems like a paradox. 

 

----

 

I don't want to get into semantics on how free "free speech" is wrt to slander and such.  I don't think there is any merit to the argument that because those aren't allowed blasphemous speech is on the table.  But we can go there if you choose.

As to dying for a dutch cartoonist, that seems silly to me.  Should be feel better or worse than the person who did for Pepsi as a trucker?  Or for Mott's as a farmhand?  Or for Exxon as a rig worker?  People die all the time for no reason, bad reasons, etc.  And they aren't in professions that expect to be in harms way.  So why should anyone feel extra bad given how he died?  Why should the cartoonist share any blame?  You think he enjoys requiring armed security?

And ultimately if we accept that extremists aren't logical, then what insult can we be sure won't become dangerous?  How can anyone shirt and say one is ok to die for and another is not?  Boko haram (sp?) Kills to stop women from being educated in the name of Islam, can we criticize them?  Are we only allowed to criticize them in word not picture?  

I guess I don't really believe we get any safer by restriction.  Do you really believe those terrorists exist only because of a dutch cartoonist?  Any contrivance will do to recruit and kill.  And REALLY don't believe the govt is good at choosing where that line is.  Think post 9/11 and how it has taken nearly 14 years and we still can't get rid of some of the bad decisions made as a result.

Oh yeah and I have no clue how to un-religious-ize fanatics. 

---

Thanks, I think this is a very nuanced and important issue (sorry that my responses are pretty long). Ideally, speech should be unrestricted and everyone is sufficiently civil to not get violent over disputes. And the courts exist to sort out matters of slander, deception, etc. So the threat of lawsuits or other punishment does deter some people from criticizing/lampooning certain people/entities - is that already too much censorship? I do think it is in the public interest to preempt some dangerous speech before it has a chance to cause widespread harm (overt fraud like claiming some poison is actually a miracle diet pill that thousands of people will want to try). Obviously the gov't is not the ideal decision maker in terms of judging speech, but unfortunately we don't have a better enforcer at this point.

Sorry, maybe it was a bad argument for me to claim that dying for certain forms of free speech would be more or less valiant. As you said, workers in most jobs expect to be safe as they perform their jobs. Sure, some crazy accidents happen, and those who perform explicitly hazardous work usually sign some waivers and are comped accordingly. It is possible (but unlikely) that an average worker at a gas station will be killed by an environmental fanatic, or a federal paper-pusher will be killed by an anti-gov't nut. I suppose there is always some reason why a violent, imbalanced person would want to kill us over our profession, and fortunately we live in a society where many people understand that it's unacceptable to use violence that way.

So I agree that speech is not inherently the problem, but instead we need to teach some people that violence is not an appropriate means of self expression. Maybe those terrorists would "still exist" if Charlie Hebdo didn't exist, but they would focus their hate on other targets (Assad, Israel, the US military, etc.). I do not think mere cartoons "created" those killers; maybe a range of factors created them - Jihadist brainwashing and military training, lack of civic education, socioeconomic marginalization. But the cartoons may have incited them to action, or at least gave their imam/mentor a straw man to blame and preach hate against.

It's like a raging bull - the animal is out of control and wanting to gore someone. There's a crowd of people nearby who see the bull coming for them. Many will run away and disperse, and the bull might eventually settle down or chase some other poor chap instead. But it would be pretty silly for some in the crowd to start waving red flags and taunting the bull, right? Especially if the bull might also gore innocent bystanders who happen to be next to the guy with the red flag.

Does our desire to exercise free speech entitle us to put associates in harm's way, when they may or may not agree with our actions? Some in France and all over the world are standing by Charlie Hebdo in solidarity, even making new cartoons mocking the killers and vowing that they will not be silenced. That is brave I suppose, and well within their rights. But now France is more of a target for Jihadis (they already were somewhat, for their actions against ISIS, treatment of immigrants, etc.). I am sure there are some in France who don't want this extra attention and would rather keep a lower profile. But since they are French, they are also targets because of the actions of their countrymen. Is that fair? Maybe some cartoonists are willing to put themselves at risk for their art and politics. But can/should they speak for their whole society, and condemn all of them to a higher level of danger? Even though these killers were born in France, it's possible that other angry killers in Muslim nations may now preferentially target French tourists, etc. France put its embassies on high alert. All I'm saying is that there are global repercussions; it's not just a simple cartoon and the exercise of free speech.

As you said, maybe restrictions are not the answer (I concede that censorship could be a knee-jerk reaction to our revulsion over violent incidents like what we just saw). We outlaw speech X, and some other crazies will get upset over speech Y. It's whack-a-mole, and I don't know where it ends. For people who are willing to engage in violent terrorism, they will always be able to find a target or someone that they disagree with if they want to look hard enough. We live in a fairly free speech society, but billions of other people don't. They may not agree with our values, they may not have good education systems and rule of law, and they have access to weapons and training. Some spiritual and political leaders fill their heads with misinformation, telling them that it's their duty to defend the faith and kill blasphemers. So we become targets, even though we really meant those people no harm.

How do we deal with that? We can't interfere in the affairs of so many other nations, and we can't force them to adopt our values. Maybe tolerance and rejection of violence are universal human values, but no one can enforce that globally, and violations abound. So until we figure all that out, we do our best to protect our freedoms and our people, and accept that sometime violent extremists will attack us? This is just the cost of our way of life? I know some people are more than willing to bear that cost, but others among us are not. I guess that is why we have civil debate and a gov't of the people, so we can collectively decide what degrees of risk and freedom we want for ourselves?