320 Years of History
Gold Member
Discussion Rules:
Bring an Effective Halt to ISIS Growth, or Accept the Consequences
How I would bring about the end of ISIS
For some time now, I've heard "this and that" about ISIS, and by and large, I was of the mind that ISIS isn't large enough or organized well enough to be more than a nuiance. This past weekend's events in Paris, followed up with explicit threats against American targets has convinced me that I was wrong. I am now of the mind that ISIS needs to dealt with much like smallpox or polio; that entity and 99.9% of its adherents and members must be eradicated. Period.
Why ISIS must be eradicated
ISIS must be eradicated for all intents and purposes because it/its members will accept no alternative but the creation of a global Islamic State, and ISIS members have asserted that they have zero reticence toward using bellicose tactics to achieve their ends. Now I have absolutely no issue with Islam for the most part, moreover, I accept that Islam, unlike Christianity, proposes not only a system of spiritual belief and practice, but also a system of social, political and legal doctrine and practice. What I have a problem with is that ISIS members have taken the "spread the faith," the missionary onus that exists for Christians just as it does for Muslims, and decided that in spreading Islam, the alternative for folks who don't accept Islam is death.
In short, ISIS has laid down the gauntlet, and embroidered on it may as well be, "Our way or no way." They want to create a planet on which everyone is Muslim. They want to create a planet on which there is only one state, the Islamic State. Well, quite frankly, that just doesn't work for me.
I could probably live in a nation governed by Islamic Law, and I doubt that my existence would be tremendously different than it is in the U.S. Notwithstanding the extreme interpretations of Sharia Law that we hear about in some organs of the press, the reality is that I pretty much (although probably not entirely; I'm sure some minor things would differ) conduct my life in ways that don't anymore run afoul of Sharia Law than it does the secular laws in the U.S. Saudi Arabia is effectively an Islamic state, and there are plenty of folks there who live very much as I do. They enjoy all the gizmos, indulgences, entertainment and whatnot that life has to offer much as I do. They bear, love and raise children. They gather socially and have a good time. I probably would have to give up pork, but I can live with that.
What I am unwilling to do is have no alternative but to die or adopt Islam as my system of spiritual belief. I'm also unwilling to live under Sharia Law, not because I cannot, for as I've written above, I don't do much that would conflict with it anyway, but because I am not keen at all on the idea that a religious leader would empowered to sit in judgement of everything. I'd not let a minister/priest use the Bible as the guideline for arbitrating between parties in the U.S., and there's no way I'd want to become a citizen of Vatican City, which is the only entirely Christian state I know of.
Now I'm not typically a "kill them all" sort of guy. I usually believe that folks can be negotiated with and a compromise reached. From what I've seen and read about ISIS, I don't think that is going to be possible with them. I don't think it is because ISIS' acts in France, Turkey, and Afghanistan, among other places show that even their own Muslim brethren, people who live in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and who one would think could at a minimum, or with greater rather than lesser facility than us Westerners, "deal with" living in ISIS' vision of Islamic State, don't want to live under their rule. But, as indicated by an Afghan gentleman in the video noted in this post's instruction, even they don't want to and cannot.
I know that some of you will blanche at what I'm about to propose. Indeed, I did too when I realized that its the only thing that will actually work. I suspect its also the least expensive solution, even though it is surely also among the most odious. My plan calls for carrying out the following acts, in order.
Why the approach described is the one I'd take
To start, ISIS have drawn the line in the sand, as it were, and made it clear to me that there's no compromise solution they'll accept. ISIS' zealous commitment to their objectives, though admirable as an assertion of commitment, combined with their averring to kill all non-conformers, including Muslims who don't interpret Islam as they do, means that equally mulish and bleak tactics are called for to effect their defeat.
Now when I watched the video noted in this post's "ground rules," I was very quickly convinced that something must be done to "stop" ISIS. Initially, my mind conjured all sorts of conventional military and police actions: bomb them, shoot them, cut off their access to banking services, etc. Then as I watched more, I began to notice things, things that made me realize that all the tactics that we might typically employ just won't work.
At best the conventional tactics Western nations use will, IMO, merely result in a never ending conflict comprised of random suicide bombings and the like that are responded to with jailings of perpetrators. All the while, ISIS members keep breeding, keep indoctrinating their children and sending them out to take ever more ambitious and spectacular "pot shots" at nations like France and the U.S. Today there are ~20K ISIS members and devotees. If they keep popping out babies, it's just a matter of time before that becomes 200K with even more ISIS inculcated zealots growing their numbers.
From watching the Frontline video, it became clear to me that ISIS have found ways to mollify or make hard to use effectively, Western nations' strength, size and technological superiority. At the same time, they have turned their comparative miniscularity and pastoral existence into strengths, strengths that individually may not be paramount, but that collectively provide them with an effective offensive and defensive toolkit that makes it very difficult for ethical, not particularly "ends oriented" nations to defeat them.
I realize that we cannot realistically expect to kill every single person who supports ISIS or who applauds their actions. Doing that need not be the aim. The aim needs to be to relegate them to a status whereby standard police action, rather than military or pseudo-military campaigns, are all that's needed to keep them in check.
The simple fact re: ISIS is that they have two critical assets: wombs and children. I do know that by destroying or denying it its women and children while it is a small enough organization that those are its keys to expansion, they will eventually reach a level where they are more than just a thorn in our side.
Also, I feel certain that would be ISIS supporters and adherents would be far less likely to do so if they understood that by doing so they are risking not only their lives, but unavoidably the lives of their children, their legacy. For ISIS just as for you and I, children are the future. If one has no children, one has no future. Frankly, I'd just as soon ISIS have no future.
- Idea(s) you present must be supported with a well-developed case, be it your own original idea or a rebuttal to or refutation of someone else's, that provides sources for all objective facts that do not consist of your own observations of events, people and places. For example:
- If you think exploding a nuclear weapon somewhere is the way to "deal with ISIS," you will need to show, among other things, how that also effectively deals with the ISIS units in other locations.
- Or if you think someone else's idea will be ineffective, you'll need to show using credible facts and/or cogently developed inductive or abductive reasoning, how and why their approach will be ineffective at achieving whatever end they identify for their course of action.
- CDZ rules of conduct are in effect.
- You must watch this Frontline video -- Watch now: FRONTLINE | ISIS in Afghanistan | PBS Video -- to participate in the discussion because many of the idea presented below are based on content from that program.
Bring an Effective Halt to ISIS Growth, or Accept the Consequences
How I would bring about the end of ISIS
For some time now, I've heard "this and that" about ISIS, and by and large, I was of the mind that ISIS isn't large enough or organized well enough to be more than a nuiance. This past weekend's events in Paris, followed up with explicit threats against American targets has convinced me that I was wrong. I am now of the mind that ISIS needs to dealt with much like smallpox or polio; that entity and 99.9% of its adherents and members must be eradicated. Period.
Why ISIS must be eradicated
ISIS must be eradicated for all intents and purposes because it/its members will accept no alternative but the creation of a global Islamic State, and ISIS members have asserted that they have zero reticence toward using bellicose tactics to achieve their ends. Now I have absolutely no issue with Islam for the most part, moreover, I accept that Islam, unlike Christianity, proposes not only a system of spiritual belief and practice, but also a system of social, political and legal doctrine and practice. What I have a problem with is that ISIS members have taken the "spread the faith," the missionary onus that exists for Christians just as it does for Muslims, and decided that in spreading Islam, the alternative for folks who don't accept Islam is death.
In short, ISIS has laid down the gauntlet, and embroidered on it may as well be, "Our way or no way." They want to create a planet on which everyone is Muslim. They want to create a planet on which there is only one state, the Islamic State. Well, quite frankly, that just doesn't work for me.
I could probably live in a nation governed by Islamic Law, and I doubt that my existence would be tremendously different than it is in the U.S. Notwithstanding the extreme interpretations of Sharia Law that we hear about in some organs of the press, the reality is that I pretty much (although probably not entirely; I'm sure some minor things would differ) conduct my life in ways that don't anymore run afoul of Sharia Law than it does the secular laws in the U.S. Saudi Arabia is effectively an Islamic state, and there are plenty of folks there who live very much as I do. They enjoy all the gizmos, indulgences, entertainment and whatnot that life has to offer much as I do. They bear, love and raise children. They gather socially and have a good time. I probably would have to give up pork, but I can live with that.
What I am unwilling to do is have no alternative but to die or adopt Islam as my system of spiritual belief. I'm also unwilling to live under Sharia Law, not because I cannot, for as I've written above, I don't do much that would conflict with it anyway, but because I am not keen at all on the idea that a religious leader would empowered to sit in judgement of everything. I'd not let a minister/priest use the Bible as the guideline for arbitrating between parties in the U.S., and there's no way I'd want to become a citizen of Vatican City, which is the only entirely Christian state I know of.
Now I'm not typically a "kill them all" sort of guy. I usually believe that folks can be negotiated with and a compromise reached. From what I've seen and read about ISIS, I don't think that is going to be possible with them. I don't think it is because ISIS' acts in France, Turkey, and Afghanistan, among other places show that even their own Muslim brethren, people who live in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan and who one would think could at a minimum, or with greater rather than lesser facility than us Westerners, "deal with" living in ISIS' vision of Islamic State, don't want to live under their rule. But, as indicated by an Afghan gentleman in the video noted in this post's instruction, even they don't want to and cannot.
- Isis: Worst refugee crisis in a generation as millions flee Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
- ISIS running out of money because refugees are fleeing its so-called Caliphate for Europe
- Refugees describe life under ISIS
- Sharp increase in Iraqi refugees fleeing ISIS into Jordan and Turkey
I know that some of you will blanche at what I'm about to propose. Indeed, I did too when I realized that its the only thing that will actually work. I suspect its also the least expensive solution, even though it is surely also among the most odious. My plan calls for carrying out the following acts, in order.
- Prevent all ISIS women from reproducing. I frankly don't care how that happens -- death or sterilization -- both work for me. I would prefer not to kill women who willfully pair with ISIS men.
- Round up ISIS children and those that can be converted from the ISIS doctrine to something more akin to the type of Islam practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims should be "saved." Those that cannot, should be eliminated. I realize that it's not inherently the kids' fault that they are born to ISIS parents. I also realize that some kids are born to Bill Gates or other successful parents while others are born to crack mothers and an absentee father. That ISIS kids have the misfortune of being born to ISIS adults is just as much a reflection of fate as one's succumbing to harm caused by a natural disaster.
- Upon achieving a 50% success level with the first two steps, begin to devote resources expressly toward eradicating (or making impotent -- politically, militarily, and or otherwise) ISIS men.
Why the approach described is the one I'd take
To start, ISIS have drawn the line in the sand, as it were, and made it clear to me that there's no compromise solution they'll accept. ISIS' zealous commitment to their objectives, though admirable as an assertion of commitment, combined with their averring to kill all non-conformers, including Muslims who don't interpret Islam as they do, means that equally mulish and bleak tactics are called for to effect their defeat.
Now when I watched the video noted in this post's "ground rules," I was very quickly convinced that something must be done to "stop" ISIS. Initially, my mind conjured all sorts of conventional military and police actions: bomb them, shoot them, cut off their access to banking services, etc. Then as I watched more, I began to notice things, things that made me realize that all the tactics that we might typically employ just won't work.
At best the conventional tactics Western nations use will, IMO, merely result in a never ending conflict comprised of random suicide bombings and the like that are responded to with jailings of perpetrators. All the while, ISIS members keep breeding, keep indoctrinating their children and sending them out to take ever more ambitious and spectacular "pot shots" at nations like France and the U.S. Today there are ~20K ISIS members and devotees. If they keep popping out babies, it's just a matter of time before that becomes 200K with even more ISIS inculcated zealots growing their numbers.
From watching the Frontline video, it became clear to me that ISIS have found ways to mollify or make hard to use effectively, Western nations' strength, size and technological superiority. At the same time, they have turned their comparative miniscularity and pastoral existence into strengths, strengths that individually may not be paramount, but that collectively provide them with an effective offensive and defensive toolkit that makes it very difficult for ethical, not particularly "ends oriented" nations to defeat them.
- Location and Organization: ISIS' lack of clear political boundaries affords them protection. ISIS exists in small groups in remote regions or clandestinely in cities/towns among other individuals who have nothing to do with ISIS. Critically, however, they exist as an organization rather than as a nation state. Nations can't just haul off and conduct military or police actions within the territory of other sovereign nations; one can't demand that other nations respect one's sovereignty and at the same time pay theirs no regard. Sure, the U.S. did exactly that to catch Osama Bin Laden, but that was to catch (kills) one man not bands of 10-100 people dispersed all over the countryside or throughout a city. Nations that exist under the rule of law need to declare war on the nations in which ISIS have employees, and that's not likely to happen. Heck, the U.S. Congress won't even declare war against ISIS.
- Location and Cost: ISIS exists in small groups in remote regions that have little in the way of infrastructure. Consequently, though one can bomb their villages and facilities, to the extent the bombs don't kill the key leaders, women, and children, ISIS can rebuild easily and quickly, all the while suffering little to no real losses.
For example, in the Frontline video, one sees that the ISIS towns consist of little more than one or two story clay structures. The unpaved roads are little more than footpaths. There doesn't appear to be electricity there even. So, if their infrastructure be destroyed, a few weeks later, it's replaced/repaired. Men and donkey's can walk through a bomb crater just as easily as walk on the stone and gravel roads that don't have craters. The short is that those people don't -- in the places where they are strongest, where they are indoctrinating children, where they are laying foundations for "the long haul" -- depend on the levels of development we do, and to that end, the financial costs they incur to recover are very low.
In contrast, when ISIS bombs a target, the economic cost to repair the damage is high and it takes a long to make the needed repairs. Additionally, the costs disperse throughout our society, if only by increasing the cost of security and preemptive actions to thwart future attacks.
The cost to repair isn't the only thing that's disproportionately in ISIS' favor. The U.S. spends ~$300K/hour fighting ISIS in Syria. I don't know what ISIS spends to support its people, but insofar as $700/month represents a good wage for ISIS' fighters in Afghanistan and so many of the group's members reside in equally underdeveloped places, I'm quite sure they spend nothing near $300K/hour. That's after considering that ISIS doesn't have the income to spend at that level. When one examines how much we spend to defeat ISIS and measure what we've actually achieved to that end, I think junk bonds would provide at least as good a ROI.
Compare our effectiveness with how effective ISIS can be with a mere pittance of economic expenditure. There are any number of "soft targets" that will forever be "soft" and that, if ISIS destroys them, are not easily, inexpensively or quickly replaced. For example:- Transmission component of the power grid -- Though power plants are the "sexy" targets in the power grid, one achieves about the same outcome by destroying the transmission lines and substations that carry electricity from the plant to the distribution infrastructure and from there to homes and businesses.
The vast majority of transmission equipment is unprotected or protected by little beyond a chain link fence and barbed wire. Taking out several key elements can effectively cripple whole cities or regions for months. If you've ever had the power go out in a storm, you'll understand immediately how much more damaging a deliberate attack on those components of the power grid would be.
- Roads, Railways and Bridges -- We take them for granted, but they are essential to our way of life. Take NYC. Destroying the bridges, or access to them, that cross into Manhattan would not only cripple that city but have effects that ripple throughout the nation. The same can be said of the key ground transportation routes that crisscross the country. Sure, there'd be alternate routes, but being forced to use them would increase the cost of most of what you and I buy because "the United States economy depends on trucks to deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight transported annually in the U.S."
- Transmission component of the power grid -- Though power plants are the "sexy" targets in the power grid, one achieves about the same outcome by destroying the transmission lines and substations that carry electricity from the plant to the distribution infrastructure and from there to homes and businesses.
- What it takes to persist -- For ISIS, what it takes for them to persist as a "going concern" are will to do so and the ability to obtain adherents. Right now, ISIS must recruit adults to supplement its fighting forces. Once it has produced and taught enough children their doctrine, its need to recruit externally will lessen. Even if they never reach the ability to be a major threat as might a nation state, they will forever be able to inflict loss of life and drive our COLA higher and higher. In order to remain a really annoying thorn in our sides, ISIS need only keep having babies.
I realize that we cannot realistically expect to kill every single person who supports ISIS or who applauds their actions. Doing that need not be the aim. The aim needs to be to relegate them to a status whereby standard police action, rather than military or pseudo-military campaigns, are all that's needed to keep them in check.
The simple fact re: ISIS is that they have two critical assets: wombs and children. I do know that by destroying or denying it its women and children while it is a small enough organization that those are its keys to expansion, they will eventually reach a level where they are more than just a thorn in our side.
Also, I feel certain that would be ISIS supporters and adherents would be far less likely to do so if they understood that by doing so they are risking not only their lives, but unavoidably the lives of their children, their legacy. For ISIS just as for you and I, children are the future. If one has no children, one has no future. Frankly, I'd just as soon ISIS have no future.
