Before the article itself, I have to make a necessary clarification. Some readers, some who probably do not know me and my personal story, might see this as some sort of veiled support for ISIS and its radical jihadism. Please be assured that it is definitely not, for you see (or will be able to see) I am capable of analyzing a situation without having to interject my personal beliefs into it. I am just asking a question in order to trigger a wider debate. Of course, this particular post may cause some concern among my public, but all I am doing is asking them to look past the headlines and consider the future of the Middle Eastern region.
As the well-informed already know, President Barack Obama has promised to “degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy“, but the negative aspect is that it may simply be not possible. As the old saying goes: “evil is not always defeated”.
I have written an article for Ace News on the “Fracturing Of Iraq“. No matter how this ‘war’ turns out, Western Asia will be changed forever, and it may not be what has been promised/hoped by the government and the military-industrial complex. However, I am afraid it will matter not much to some profiteers for they will gain no matter who wins and who goes home (?).
It is under everyone’s eyes that the whole world has been shocked by the terror generated by the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), since it has proven to be capable of horrendous acts of savagery with a territory expanding into two countries and encompassing much land mass. As they settle down from their initial attacks and their blitzkrieg across what remains of the definitions of Syria and Iraq, they have also begun setting up their own state: the Islamic State, a state ruled by the sharia law, or rather the most extreme exegesis of fundamentalism contained in the Islamic Scripture.
Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s creature has issued money, is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governing, such as issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines in order to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies. Such a transition may hence demand that the West and the international community rethink their military-first approach to combating the group.
The above-mentioned merciless fundamentalists committed several barbaric killings and massacres, use terror to force obedience and frighten enemies. IS militants have seized territory, destroyed (copies of) antiquities, slaughtered minorities, forced women into sexual slavery and turned children into killers. Da’ish (Arab acronym for ISIS) has retained control through the use of terror to enforce strict laws since its very beginning.
The question is, could that change?
A recent study in Foreign Affairs focused on the group’s evolving legal system, based on an austere interpretation of Islamic law and modeled on a system set down by the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century. Andrew F. March, a professor of political science at Yale, and Mara Revkin, a graduate student there, wrote in the study that over time the Islamic State “could become an increasingly ‘normal’ state, in which the simplicity of rules and institutions plucked out of early Islamic history gives way to bureaucratic administration and positive law.” (New York Times)
ISIS has already started to tone down some of its more extreme situations. Is it possible that they could settle into a functioning state?
This could be end up being the apparently dismal future of both Iraq and Syria and, what’s more, the militias in Iraq are starting to question the United States and its resolve to win this war.
Several Iraqi leaders have criticized the US for what they view as tepid support in the ongoing ISIS war, but the harshest criticism by far came today, from Qais al-Khazali, the head of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a powerful Shi’ite militia that has been active in the war. Khazali said he believes the US isn’t serious at all about fighting ISIS because they have no intention of defeating the group in the near-term, saying the US wants to “exploit (them) to achieve its projects in Iraq and in the region,” saying the US wants regional repartition. (Anti War)