A good article but it fails to mention one important thing, that is, that Islam itself is divided. There is a great rift in the religion itself and for many centuries the largest number of victims of violence from Islam have been other Muslims.
If they were to unite (as ISIS proposes ... again at the point of a sword) they would be a great threat to the West.
But until they do unite, they are not a great threat. Sure, one side of each sect can cause a lot of damage and death ... but nothing on the scale of what ISIS intends to bring upon other Muslims who they consider to be not of the “true faith”.
Therefore, they must defeat, completely subdue and dominate and then and force into service their own ‘muslim infidels’ FIRST before they can begin on a quest to do the same to non-muslim infidels.
I propose that they will have great difficulty doing this as it has never been done over many centuries but not for lack of trying. Many millions have been slain, maimed, brought into slavery to those ends but still, no success in getting a “one true Islam” amongst themselves.
In the meantime while they are busy trying to unite all Muslims (and slaughtering many in the process), why get in their way?
This seems like the most stupid tactical error that can be made ... to cut short one’s enemy from destroying itself.
This is essentially what we are have been doing in the ME since Bush I went in to ‘help’ the Kuwaitis (who were ever so ungrateful for us sparing them from Sadaam). I realize we had other geo-strategic reasons for doing so ... but still, why would we bother to save the Kuwaitis from Sadaam? Even if it is only in hindsight, we must acknowledge now that was a stupid move.
Long term I’d like to see us wait until our enemy kills more of our enemies because this will mean fewer people for us to deal with later.
Let’s defend our own territories in the West but do not waste precious lives, equipment, assets and money protecting Muslims from Muslims. This just makes no sense whatsoever.
This is a lengthy article and perhaps you missed it but that divide is mentioned:
Obviously, the enemies of the Islamic State and its jihadist allies are not only the “Crusaders” or the West. Some of Islam’s bloodiest wars were its invasion of Hindu India, where the tension remains marked. There are also Muslim efforts into China. The Philippines has a major problem as does Russia. But Islam wars with itself. The Sunni/Shiite struggles are legendary. It is important to note that one of the first things on the Islamic State’s agenda, if it is successful in surviving, is to unite all of Islam in its creedal unity.
It further develops the impact of this, regionally ...
All existing Islamic states are some sort of compromise between the true Islamic mission and forces, usually military forces that limit this world-wide unification. Almost all standing Muslim governments recognize the danger to themselves of a successful Caliphate. They all have some form of jihadist presence within their boundaries that seek to control it in the name of their very survival.
Perhaps that is why Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are joining forces with the US.
Very good point. When I read “The mission of mankind is the submission to Allah in all things. Once this submission is in place, the sphere of war will be over.”, i thought that they will just turn on each other, Sunni vs Shia, and other heretics.
You are conflating the message of Schall's piece with the true nature of Gulf War I -- which was strictly political and economic, having nothing to do with Islam, at all.
The Iraqis and the Kuwaitis weren't going to slaughter each other, not would the Iraqis have slaughtered the Saudis -- who were next in line. Oil and, thus, economic leverage were the only stakes for these then-secular regimes.
Thus, we weren't taking sides in a religious war -- as you're suggesting -- we were intervening in favor of "the free flow of oil, at market prices", just as GHWB pronounced.
To maintain the free flow of oil at market prices. And thus, our way of life.
Even if it is only in hindsight, we must acknowledge now that was a stupid move.
Nonsense. We need acknowledge no such thing, particularly when no reasons apart from "Monday morning quarterbacking" can be given.
Indeed, such doctrinaire pontifications fairly demand a comprehensively outlined solution superior to the one employed by George Bush.