As I write, I am just now learning about the terrorist attack -- immediately attributed to ISIS -- in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, a town near Lyon, in the southeastern part of France. (See here and here. The Wikipedia page sprang up so rapidly, it seemed almost to precede the event itself.) ) There was an attack on a factory involving bombs. There was also a severed head found at the scene, plus a message in Arabic.
The reports available at this time differ as to how many attackers were responsible. There seems to have been at least two jihadis invovled, one of whom is under arrest.
At the same time, in Tunisia, there was an attack on two resort hotels catering to the tourist trade. There was gunfire on the beach and the sound of explosions. There is also a report that a hot air balloon (!) was brought down.
To top it off, an offshoot of ISIS called Najd Province has claimed responsibility for the destruction of a Shiite mosque in Kuwait.
By the time you read these words, you will probably know many more details than I do right at this time. Reports that are sketchy now will, I presume, solidify as the day progresses.
Yet I doubt that we will have an answer to the first question that popped into my head: Why?
No, I'm not posing that question in any philosophical sense. The practical value of these attacks escapes me.
Until now, ISIS has been engaged in the business of conquering territory and establishing a state. They want to establish an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq, and then move on to Iran. They have never before shown any willingness to engage western interests outside of the region they claim as their own.
Al Qaeda, not ISIS, was the group that wanted to bring the fight to the west. That difference in strategy -- in worldview -- is the reason why the two groups were at loggerheads for a while last year.
Anyone with any sense can see that, by attacking a target in France, ISIS has simply increased support for western intervention in that part of the world.
As of last night, most Americans did not want to see any proverbial "boots on the ground" in Iraq. How will they feel tonight? I feel certain that the notion of intervention will suddenly become more popular. The neocons are probably smirking right now.
It's as if ISIS wants to face the Marines. Why? How could such a confrontation possibly help them?
Why would they commit actions designed to validate those who claim that ISIS poses more than a regional threat?
Maybe we'll have answers to these questions as the day wears on. But right now, the only explanation that makes any sense to me is that these events were not directed or encouraged by ISIS proper (meaning, the group headed by Al-Baghdadi). Perhaps they were independent actions by local "wannabes."
But...is this possible? Three independent attacks in three separate nations, nearly simultaneously? It all seems quite coordinated.
6 comments:
It's almost as if ISIS' entire raison d'etre is to provide inflammatory actions designed specifically to justify Western military action in the Middle East. I mean, if I were a cynical person I'd almost believe ISIS is taking orders from someone who wants another war, possibly against Syria and then Iran.
" How could such a confrontation possibly help them?"
Western hegemony depends on ISIS, to legitimize its being in that part of the globe. Simplistic
answer, to be sure, but accurate, I think.
Thanks, for what you do Joe.
Another attack no doubt to lure the U.S. into more mideast war.
"The Wikipedia page sprang up so rapidly, it seemed almost to precede the event itself."
Perhaps that is a clue to answer your questions. ISIS reeks of a pay-op, particularly the execution videos which keep coming through the spooky SITE. There is no way ISIS could sustain itself in the field without significant outside assistance, but shutting down the financing and closing off the supply lines - all of which originate from allies in the region - has never been seriously considered. Instead, there is a steady drumbeat insisting on the need for a large NATO presence coupled with the insistence that the "struggle" will take decades. ISIS is the vessel which takes the West to a full military occupation of the Shia allied Middle East.
It will be a bait-and-switch, as of course the Shia are not carrying out these atrocities.
You're looking for for some sort of rationality for what ISIS is doing but you have to realize that they actually believe what they say they believe. As far as they're concerned a great battle against the West is exactly what they want and Allah will make sure they prevail as their theological prophecy dictates.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
"It's as if ISIS wants to face the Marines. Why? How could such a confrontation possibly help them?"
Because they've learnt from Vietnam and Afghanistan. The US would get dragged in across a wide area, bogged down, and would eventually lose the region and ISIS would gain it.
"Why would they commit actions designed to validate those who claim that ISIS poses more than a regional threat?"
In what market? They're not fighting for non-Muslims' hearts and minds in the West. And in any case, chuck logic out of the window when considering political debates.
The trouble with these answers isn't glibness but that they don't question the premise that ISIS is the enemy of the West. The headchoppers in Riyadh aren't.
I try to use the term Spreaders of Saudi Culture when the western media reports the latest liver-eating, headchopping, or other murder of innocents by Muslim fanatics. Young people are like fucking zombies nowadays, so you've got to keep the number of words down or you won't get past the shield. Unfortunately I can't report much success! :-)
Post a Comment