ISIS: Rogue State or Organized Crime Gang/Mafia
The West has been at ‘war’ with the Mafia and other organized crime gangs for over a century now. And nobody really thinks there will be some final ‘victory’. On the other hand the Mafia is at one of its lowest ebbs in both the United States and Italy. And who among us really remembers the days when Baader-Meinhoff terrorized Germany or the Red Brigades Italy. Or the Manson Family southern California – ooops, that is everybody because they made books and movies about it and the primary victim was a pregnant movie star. But all of which makes the point – horrible people have been doing horrible things to more or less innocent peoples since forever. And there is nothing that ISIS did in Paris that exceeds what the Manson Family did in 1969 or Al Capone’s guys in the Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. It was all brutal and evil and fully justified the full application of the force of the State to suppress it, up to and including deadly force as necessary. But only as necessary. Al Capone died in prison and Chuck Manson will too, there was no need to carpet bomb Chicago or the California desert.
ISIS are not world history’s worst monsters. On the other hand they are pretty damn monstrous. On balance are they worse than the worst branches of the Mafia over its several century history? I don’t know, on the other hand I am not going to pre-judge the State’s attempt to ruthlessly crush them. Now lots of mockery has been expended on the notion that ‘terrorism’ can be addressed as a criminal justice matter rather than some matter of existential war of civilizations. But calling these matters ‘crimes’ rather than ‘war’ is important. In WWII we declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on the U.S. and this war was considered on both sides a war of country vs. country and people vs. people with the result of really terrible acts perpetrated by both sides against an amorphous enemy. In the context of total war firebombing Tokyo and Dresden were considered simple acts of war. And if anyone objected the answers were easy: “Coventry”, “Pearl Harbour”, “The Bataan Death March”.
But we don’t need to adopt the model of ‘Total War’. ISIS is not Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. On the other hand it is a little harder target than the Detroit Purple Gang of the 20s and 30s or the Gambino Family of the 70s and 80s. All of which means that we need to calibrate our violence to the actual threat. We can take the War to ISIS without taking it to the entire Islamic World. Just as taking the War to the Mafia didn’t require carpet bombing every Sons of Columbus Hall and blowing up the Vatican. In both cases you need to keep focus on the Bad Guys. And regard collateral damage as a tragedy and not as we too often did in World War Two as a payback.
Maybe the Italians will never extirpate every trace of the Mafia from Sicily. In fact I will bet big money that not. And I predict that 100 years from now, and despite all the efforts of Batman, er I mean the NYPD Gang Squad, there will still be organized crime in Gotham/The Big Apple. Even though there will be episodes of Good Guys shooting down Bad Guys. And Bad Guys killing Innocent Civilians. And so too for ISIS. We can never defeat the underlying forces that lead to criminality. Which doesn’t mean we can’t cheer the day that Seal Team Six put bullets in Osama bin Ladin’s head or the day, hopefully soon, when a Hellfire Missile takes out the top leadership of ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh. But Christ Almighty can we keep the fire bombings and nuclear attacks in our back pocket? Taking out criminal leaders of criminal regimes while understanding that not every person under the power of that regime is a legitimate target is not some wimpy response, some lightweight attempt to ignore the fact that “we are at war” and not busting people for jay-walking. But there is a middle way that has us targeting the actual bad guys as criminal thugs who may require lethal justice. Without carpet bombing Palermo or the Bronx.
We need to focus on preventing the thing from happening versus reacting. Instead of 1,000,000 military people figuring out how to bomb stuff, turn them into federal undercover anti-terrorist police that patrol cities, and investigate leads. That might free up police to deal with gangs too. Because you are right, there will always be bad people, but maybe we can make it hard for those folks to execute their bad deeds in a smart way.
I don’t think it’s quite as simple as the mafia/Bader Meinhof/ Red Brigades analogy. These people are, in fact occupying territory and attacking within other states viewed by them as enemies with the apparent intent of harming the societies of those states and influencing governmental action of those states. That doesn’t mean the appropriate response is carpet bombing or occupation (at least by western powers). It does seem, though, that this is more than a traditional criminal enterprise.
“[There] is nothing that ISIS did in Paris that exceeds what the Manson Family did in 1969 or Al Capone’s guys [did] in the Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929.”
Manson: 9 dead
Valentine’s Day, 1929: 7 dead
Paris, 2015: 129 dead
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-seven-deadliest-attacks-in-europe.html
The analogy doesn’t hold up too well. What Warren notes is accurate, and in the case of the Mafia/St. Valentine’s Day event, that was criminal on criminal. Mason was certifiable and his “girls” likely were as well. ISIS is a horse of a different color and requires something more than seeing as another criminal conspiracy of epic proportions.
The Mafia didn’t try to take political control of a territory encompassing two nations through out right warfare. They should be fought, but not in any way that approximates the police fighting racketeers. Even murderous racketeers. No, indiscriminate bombing isn’t likely to work. Better reconnaissance would be a good first step. They can locate Jihadi John with drone surveillance. Why not an entire band of armed insurgents in the open desert?
There are many seeming contradictions to this fight against ISIS and terrorists. I don’t think we’re getting the whole story in an accurate telling. It’s too difficult to believe that such a large militia type group can simply fade into the sand. Something is amiss.
One of the commentators on tonight’s PBS Newshour just made a comment that rings true to me. His words were something like we should take a very heavy handed approach to the political situation in Syria and Iraq. I think he meant that we should take a serious approach to dealing with the political situation in Syria and Iraq.
This rings true especially about the situation in Iraq. The US state department made serious mistakes there. Paul Bremer rushed to exclude all Ba’athist from any government position and there should have been a much longer period before the government was turned back over to the Iraqis.
The end result of the state department’s mistakes was to give the power to the Shiites. Who proceeded to mistreat the Sunnis in the way that they had been mistreated.
There will not be any peace in Iraq until that problem is corrected. The Shiites can not be allowed to abuse the Sunnis or the Kurds. We should cut off all aid to the Iraqi government.
We should point out to the Iraqi government that they have a serious problem in their army as it is currently configured. (I suspect they have appointed political generals of questionable ability.) When Mosul was attacked the army leadership cut and run, and the rest of the army decided not to die in a futile cause. (Even though it was not futile, they had the power to resist).
The Kurds are the one bright spot in Iraq and we should find some way to continue aid to them.
Syria is a different case. It was and is ruled by a tough dictator much like Saddam Hussein. It appears that much of the middle east can not be run any other way. Most of them are just not ready for a true democracy. So the quickest way to end the disaster in Syria is to accept the obvious. We should grit out teeth, link arms with the Russians and Bashar al-Assad, and kill off Daesh. Then there are legitimate complaints about the Syrian government and we should do a little arm twisting to try to correct the worst of those. It’s ugly but it is the best we can do.
“We should cut off all aid to the Iraqi government.”
That is a start.
I’m a big fan of running away.
I am not talking about running away.
I am talking about forcing the Shiite controlled Iraqi government to face the reality that they must work with the Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Additionally they must provide military support when needed.
And they must have professional military officers, not political hacks. That government’s use of Shiite militias is an admission that their military is in shambles.
Otherwise when Daesh is run out of Syria they will take refuge with the Sunnis in Iraq.
Those are the political problems in Iraq. Maybe Iraq is not ready for a democracy either.
“Maybe Iraq is not ready for a democracy either.”
Maybe?
This is the problem with “regime change.” It is easy to justify “change from.” It has proven very difficult to control “change to.”
I am talking about running away.
I have seen no benefit to us or anyone in the middle east from our presence.
Webb – Not to worry! The US is following your advice, the gloves are on, not off. By way of example consider the US strike on a convoy of oil trucks yesterday. The trucks were carrying crude that is part of the $2m a day that goes to funding ISIL. Before the A10s started shooting they dropped leaflets warning that an attack was coming.
Me? I have a different view. If you’re driving a truck that puts money into ISIL hands you will die in a fireball.
Anyway, I don’t think this matters. After the Russian announcement today that confirms that ISIL blew up a plane with 224 Russians on board there will be a very significant response. Putin’s words:
“Our combat operation of aviation in Syria should
not be simply continued,” Mr. Putin said. “It should
be intensified in the way that offenders understand
that the vengeance is inevitable.”
No need for the US to turn the sand into glass – the Russians will do it for us.
But can we agree that if ISIL takes out a US plane full of US citizens, or plants a car bomb in a US city (ala Beirut last week), or sponsors a shootout in NY or DC then the gloves come off?
Or do we just drop more leaflets?
“No need for the US to turn the sand into glass – the Russians will do it for us. ”
This is the Green Lantern theory of Putin-power. Russia is as weak as it’s ever been. A few more bombs may fall from Russian jets, but it won’t make any difference to the Da’esh picture.
Falling for the trap Da’esh has set for the West is foolish and dangerous. Fetishizing Putin is just silly.
I am sure Bruce can go much further with my point. These are not really the countries which existed over time with the exception of Egypt, Turkey, etc. Many of the countries evolved out of the settlement resulting from WWI and a line in the sand.
“I should like to draw a line from the ‘e’ in Acre to the last ‘k’ in Kirkuk,” Sykes said.
It was just that simple.
Run75441,
I get your point about the arbitrarily set borders.
But how do mere mortals divide those countries while still spreading the benefits from the sale of oil? (Without setting up the basis for regular warfare.)
And the Shiite controlled Iraqi government is not likely to approve dividing their country, just when they have finally gotten control.
Getting Syria to agree to some division would not be any easier. Syria has a Russian ally now. Why should they settle?
Revising international borders is problematical. If you start that in Iraq and Syria, then Turkey and Iran will demand a seat at the table and probably some land concessions. International borders may be imperfect but meddling with them is likely to end badly. (Wars become a real possibility.) Look at the mess in the East and South China Seas.
” These are not really the countries which existed over time with the exception of Egypt, Turkey, etc”
Run your “over time” only goes back a couple of centuries. If you take a look at what the French Annales School of Historians call “La longue duree” there have been States centered on the Levant, Northern Syria, Mesopotamia (‘between the Rives’) for many thousands of years. Sykes-Pikot didn’t establish the border between Assyria and Mesopotamia they just marked it in a convenient way on the map. Similarly the idea the Lebanon was an artificial State would have come as a big surprise to first the Phoenicians or that the area to the south of there wasn’t to the Canaanites and the Philistines.
The Assyrian Empire and the Babylonian Empire and the Phoenician City States are not just story lines in the Old Testament or entries in some survey course on Ancient Near Eastern History any more than those of Turkey and Egypt are. They all have successor States based around the same economic, political and geographic centers that have always been there. And just as important these are not abstractions to the people who are there. There have been major civilizations and subject people centered around the Levant (Lebanon), Assyria (Syria), and Mesopotamia (Iraq) since forever. And mini-States around trading ports on the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Red Sea for just as long. There is nothing artificial about Oman or even Yemen. At worst the names have changed from how they appear in the Old Testament. In fact the only truly artificial States in the mid-east are Jordan (originally Trans-Jordan and so defined from the outside to begin with) and Saudi Arabia. Both artificially imposed on originally independent Bedouin and other tribes by the British. (A fascinating story that ought to be made into a movie – oh yeah it was!!! Called ‘Lawrence of Arabia’!.)
The European colonial period in the mid-east was just a blink of an eye in historical time. It started with the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and persisted only until the early years of WWII. The States that emerged after WWII with the partial exception of Saudi Arabia have roots going back to the beginnings of civilization.
http://www.timemaps.com/history/middle-east-1500bc
1500 BC. And yet we see the cores of Egypt, Lebanon-Palestine, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran/Persia already in existence. Empires temporarily flowed over all these States: Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome (admittedly for a long time), Mongols, Ottomans, Britain-France. But none of that eliminated the underlying nation-states.
Like Bogart told Bergmann in Casablanca: “We will always have Assyria”. Well okay maybe not. Still the place has had the same name for a long, long time. And people still identify as “Assyrian” even today. And speak it. And have a Church organized around it.
And Sargon of Akkad, aka Sargon the Great, laughs at our idea that Iraq is artificial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad
I was thinking more in terms of the blinking of the historical eye after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
Going back more than the blink of the historical eye is much more problematic. Blink, there goes the US southern border. Blink, there goes the US western border. Blink, there goes English colonial America except for a very small footprint along the Atlantic Ocean.
The further we go back in time to rearrange borders, the greater the likelihood of perpetual war.
England presents an interesting study with their apparent willingness to allow Scotland’s independence. That would recreate a border back to the one that existed in 1707.
The United States would never allow for that sort of border change. And I doubt that any other country today would allow it either.
But England seems to be unwilling to recreate the border with Wales which was erased in 1536.
In real terms the border between Wales and England was erased in 1282. Even the Welsh identify the end of Welsh independence in that year. There were revolts that but nothing that ever really challenged the English. And if anything the date 1536 for Wales ironically marks the year that Wales conquered England. Because Henry VII who emerged at Bosworth as the ultimate victor of the War of the Roses between Lancasters and Yorks was only an in-law of the Yorks and partisan of the Lancasters and drew his legitimacy from his wife. Tudor just being Welsh Tewdor.
Just as the Union in 1707 more or less recognized the legitimacy of the Scottish Conquest of England when James VI of Scotland became James I of England after the death of is cousin (once remove) Elizabeth, once again deriving his title from his grandmother Margaret Tudor.
We can play these games all day. I might as well get some value out of my time as a PhD candidate in Medieval Welsh history. But I was reacting to Run’s assertion that all these countries were essentially artificial creations. As opposed to some organic identity in Turkey and Egypt. And arguing that that is not true at all. And or that matter is not true of Turkey either. Which historically has never been a unity except when that was imposed from above. You can ask the Kurds how that has worked out over the last 20 centuries or so. They NEVER bought into that paradigm.
Bruce:
You are doing what I had hoped you would do. Thank you.
What an interesting concept of conquest! (Smiling here)
I am going to be politically incorrect here, so let me start by saying I believe all of the world’s religions are a crock. I have the same lack of respect for Christians as I do for Muslims, and don’t let me get started on the Jews or Hindus.
I keep hearing(to paraphrase Bill Maher here) about how these acts are committed by a tiny part of the Muslim population. What are the rest of them doing?
You telling me that these terrorists are not being supported by other Muslims? That all the rest of the Muslims in the world do not know who these people are?
Let them fix it.
Move out of the ME altogether. Another terrorist attack occurs? Follow the money and the terrorist. The country that spawned them gets sanctioned for a year by the entire world.
IE, 9/11. Think the Saudis would allow terrorists to have them sanctioned for a year?
You cannot win with these people. They take their religion far too seriously to engage in actual dialogue with them.
“You telling me that these terrorists are not being supported by other Muslims? That all the rest of the Muslims in the world do not know who these people are?”
The most populous Muslim country on the planet is Indonesia. Why do you imagine Muslims in Indonesia support Da’esh? Why would a Muslim in Indonesia know about or care about Da’esh or a caliphate halfway around the world? Hell, Muslims in Iran (Shiite) vehemently oppose Da’esh, which is Sunni.
Your ideas of collective responsibility based on a superficial nomenclature make as much sense as supposing that all members of the Russian Orthodox Church naturally support the KKK in the US because they are Christians.
“They take their religion far too seriously to engage in actual dialogue with them.”
I have come to suspect that the word tolerance in middle eastern languages just means that the tolerated is not killed. Anyone who converts away from Islam is not tolerated. Since I am not sure of the limits of their concept of tolerance, it is probably better safe than sorry.
Obviously the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is alien to them, unless it is taken to mean the freedom to speak what is generally agreeable to any muslim. In that case they would be somewhat similar to college students and their professors in this country. (Smiling)
I believe that I have just skirted micro aggression!
Joel,
So why is a minor part of the Sunni sect able to succeed when I am told most of the Sunni sect do not support them and the Shiites all hate them?
Where does the money come from?
I should have said, “that none of the rest of the Muslims in the world, as opposed to all.”
The other Sunnis will not identify these people? Let alone oppose them?
But that is besides my point. I want to make these terrorists the responsibility of their neighbors. Y’know, the members of whatever superficial nomenclature they claim.
“So why is a minor part of the Sunni sect able to succeed when I am told most of the Sunni sect do not support them and the Shiites all hate them?”
30,000 people holding a few towns in the desert is your idea of success?
“Where does the money come from?”
Much of it comes from the Wahabbi kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an ostensible American ally. ca. $1.5 million comes from oil sales in the areas they control.
“The other Sunnis will not identify these people? Let alone oppose them?”
al Qaeda, which is itself also a criminal syndicate, opposes Da’esh. Most of the Sunni world hates Da’esh, from what I’ve read:
“Just ask Muslims the world over. Imagine that: actually talking to and hearing out 1.5 billion people who live, identify with and practice this religion. From Sunni to Shi’a, secular to conservative, Islamist to liberal, autocratic to democratic, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his doppelganger of a Caliphate have united the Muslim world like no one else has – against them.
Even al-Qaida, which the vast majority of the world’s Muslims have rejected, condemned and spurned, considers ISIS too violent. This is despite ISIS saying its actions are justified in Islam, or acting in Islam’s name or those faithful to the faith.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/19/the_atlantics_big_islam_lie_what_muslims_really_believe_about_isis/
“But that is besides my point. I want to make these terrorists the responsibility of their neighbors. Y’know, the members of whatever superficial nomenclature they claim.”
I can see that. Just like making the KKK and the American Nazi Party the responsibility of all white people. You are accepting partial responsibility for the atrocity committed by Tim McVeigh.
Feh.
“ca. $1.5 million *a day*”
I really don’t think you are going to reason with them or contain them or pacify them. We are not talking about a political movement, we are talking about a religious ideology and following that actually wants to return to the world of 1000AD. There is only one tried and true method of dealing with fanatics like this, kill them and keep killing them until they give up. How you do this is up for debate but let us not ignore reality folks, they need to die.
I would say ISIS thinks it is successful when it kills people. Not my idea, but that seems to be theirs.
Last time I looked Tim McVeigh was caught, tried and executed.
I am not responsible for his actions, I am responsible to stop him, hopefully before his actions.
I don’t blame the entire Muslim world for ISIS or Al’Queda or whoever, I just want them to stop them.
And until they do, I have no time for them.
We know the money comes from Saudi Arabia?
Sanction them.
Meanwhile, I fail to see what action you would recommend. Seems to me it will amount to almost the same one I propose.
Leave the alone. Let them handle it. If they don’t handle it, we hit them in the pocketbook.
I haven’t seen anything other than than work in the ME.
EMichael:
We certainly do not need “boots on the ground” unless it is Jeb’s boots and George suited up to fly “again.” Wouldn’t that be a dynamic dual? Muslims do have the power to oppose them and stop them. They must hate us more than they hate them which causes hesitation. Less ME oil for us? So we grow out of it usage sooner.
“Last time I looked Tim McVeigh was caught, tried and executed.”
Last time I checked, Jihadi John was blown to pieces. Does that mean that the Muslim world is now absolved of responsibility for Da’esh, in your eyes?
“Meanwhile, I fail to see what action you would recommend. Seems to me it will amount to almost the same one I propose. ”
Apart from your willingness to assign collective guilt for Da’esh to all of world Islam, it looks like we may have some overlap.
We need to stop with the “regime change,” at least until we are quite sure what the next regime will be. A good reason we shouldn’t invade and occupy Saudi Arabia, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi and Saudi Arabia still sponsors ME terrorism.
We need to stop being dependent on ME oil (which is really just world oil, since the oil market is global). When the price of ME oil no longer matters, Da’esh will have nothing. You can’t build a caliphate in the 21st century without lots of money–nobody will come. When the money dries up, you’ll be able to house what remains of Da’esh in a small college dormitory.
So we agree on policy. the idea that we have gotten deeply involved, or involved at all, in regime change in the middle east is appalling to me.
BTW,
If Jihadi John was the only one killing people, I would not be criticizing the actions of anyone.
Meanwhile, which Muslim killed him?
The enemy is not who you hear about on TV.
The Sunni and wahabbists who “put[s] money into ISIL hands [you] will die in a fireball.” That applies to Sunnis from Tikrit to Doha to Riyadh and down to Medina.
When Sunnis start show up dead is alleys by KGB………
When you put that [recently] cheap gasoline of gas in your SUV you are funding ISIS and al Qaeda.
The neo con malarkey [Irish for BS] about Iran supporting terror is Murdoch directed propaganda for ISIS and their Sunni supporters.
The difference between McVeigh and Jihadi John is due process.
Body count means less with the Sunni terrorists than it did trying to keep the Vietnamese nationalists from killing US’ Saigon criminals.
ilsim:
I tend to agree on who the enemy is. “The Sunni and wahabbists who ‘put[s] money into ISIL hands [you] will die in a fireball.’” Neat little WM article on this topic. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_11/wahhabi_responsibility058651.php#disqus_thread
Run75441,
The article you linked to, provides another link from which it draws much of the basis for its commentary.
See: http://www.thenation.com/article/we-cannot-defeat-isis-without-defeating-the-wahhabi-theology-that-birthed-it/
And from that linked article:
“We must call to account the governments of the United States, France, Britain, Russia, Iran, and many others, who lent support and succor to tyrant after tyrant in the Middle East and North Africa, and whose interventions appear to create 10 terrorists for every one they kill.
We must call to account George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whose disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi army destabilized the entire region.
We must call to account the Saudi kings—Salman, Abdullah, and Fahd—whose funding of Wahhabi doctrine gave rise to the scourge of Islamic extremism.”
There we see her point exposed. Muslims and Islam are misunderstood. This problem is being caused by this small sect which has been funded via the west’s purchases of oil.
Then the west had the unmitigated gall to demand that co conspirators to murder be extradited, and when that was refused, to intervene in the middle east. (Sarcasm intended.)
It is worth reading a Muslin’s explanations for Islam’s connection with terrorism. But all I found there was a Muslim who is unhappy that her religion is blamed for mass murder. And an attempt to avert any blame from most of Islam.
But now, American and French citizens have been involved and they are killing people in the US and in France. The common thread is Islam. They were going to mosques in the US and in France. But NO OTHER MUSLIMS at those mosques noticed any teachings that seemed extreme. Unbelievable, unless heated rhetoric is so common that it is no longer noted.
I suspect the problem is that these young terrorists are taking what they are taught, to a logical conclusion. (An admonition to defend other members of the Islamic community sounds harmless enough, but what sort of defense is implied. Are they taught the limits of such a defense at the same time.) There must have been older muslims in those mosques who winced at certain sentences and certain themes but they just ignored their discomfort.
That is my opinion. Yours may differ.
There must have been older muslims in those mosques who winced at certain sentences and certain themes but they just ignored their discomfort.”
There have been plenty of Muslims who have not merely winced, but publicly condemned terrorism. I suspect there are many, many more who don’t have a public microphone, but nevertheless condemn terrorism. And there are probably many who, far from ignoring their discomfort, were forced to hide it for fear of violent reprisal.
Do you believe that every person who lives in a community where there are drug dealers tacitly approves of drug dealing?