The Different Enemy
As we move forward as a country, we have to consider the danger that groups such as ISIS represent and the fact that groups such as this don't just pop up. They ferment to foment. ISIS becomes the next step from a group that, say five years ago, was considered radical, which sprang from another group that was, perhaps 10 years ago, radical. But the rise of ISIS represents the escalation in radicalism and the direction unwavering fundamentalism inevitably leads. With each iteration of radicalism, the fundamentalism gets tighter and the reprisals against those who do not share such sensibilities increases. They are a violent group because they have the belief that they are so abundantly correct that whatever they do is justified. Violence is a matter of course and, in their opinion, their morality cannot be gauged by anyone outside the fold.
This is a different kind of enemy than we are used to. We fight them in much the same way we would fight other enemies, but we find that the response is different as there is no one place to which we can direct our attacks. We cannot fight their ideology because it is so radical it makes little sense outside of their particular understanding of their faith which seems to be tied to Islam. This is not to say that this is Islam - in fact I doubt it is. Yet because of the nature of ISIS, we are finding that we cannot differentiate between the two. Unless those who profess Islam as their faith finally stand and declare ISIS to be anathema or at least heterodox it is hard to draw lines of demarcation against those who would obliterate themselves and others in an effort to further their cause.
And this is perhaps one of the marked differences in this conflict. During the Cold War, America and Russia had the capability to destroy one another several times over. Yet there was an unspoken idea that while we may have hated one another, neither side wished to bring about the global catastrophe of outright war or nuclear reprisals. There was a sense of boundaries as well as a recognition that Russians were not all defined by the rhetoric of their leaders. The same is true for us.
With ISIS, there is no compunction for restraint. Believers and non-believers, adherents and enemies are all likely targets given the nature of suicide bombings and IEDs. There is no sense of boundary with an enemy that does not care who dies.
As we watch ISIS destroy the history of the areas they conquer, I can't help but look at the architecture and history that points to the fact that ISIS arises out of a land that had a proud history and forward thinking leaders over the centuries. Yet they neither care nor respect their own history which comes from an ideological view that what was is as decadent and wicked as what is. There is no future empire rising from the ashes, there is only the idea that if they detonate enough, the ashes will be all that is left and that, in some fashion, is what God in their conception desires.
Perhaps there can be no diplomatic solution until those who live close to ISIS declare their opposition. Even then, it is unlikely that ISIS would ever wish to talk diplomatically. It is outside their realm of belief and operation.
In short, the West and in many ways East face an enemy who does not and will not share any sensibilities with which we are familiar or used to. My fear is that in combating such an enemy we, too, might become ravenous monsters for whom there is no redemption. We cannot become that which we oppose, but we must learn how to stand in opposition to the terror that has coalesced as ISIS.
This is a different kind of enemy than we are used to. We fight them in much the same way we would fight other enemies, but we find that the response is different as there is no one place to which we can direct our attacks. We cannot fight their ideology because it is so radical it makes little sense outside of their particular understanding of their faith which seems to be tied to Islam. This is not to say that this is Islam - in fact I doubt it is. Yet because of the nature of ISIS, we are finding that we cannot differentiate between the two. Unless those who profess Islam as their faith finally stand and declare ISIS to be anathema or at least heterodox it is hard to draw lines of demarcation against those who would obliterate themselves and others in an effort to further their cause.
And this is perhaps one of the marked differences in this conflict. During the Cold War, America and Russia had the capability to destroy one another several times over. Yet there was an unspoken idea that while we may have hated one another, neither side wished to bring about the global catastrophe of outright war or nuclear reprisals. There was a sense of boundaries as well as a recognition that Russians were not all defined by the rhetoric of their leaders. The same is true for us.
With ISIS, there is no compunction for restraint. Believers and non-believers, adherents and enemies are all likely targets given the nature of suicide bombings and IEDs. There is no sense of boundary with an enemy that does not care who dies.
As we watch ISIS destroy the history of the areas they conquer, I can't help but look at the architecture and history that points to the fact that ISIS arises out of a land that had a proud history and forward thinking leaders over the centuries. Yet they neither care nor respect their own history which comes from an ideological view that what was is as decadent and wicked as what is. There is no future empire rising from the ashes, there is only the idea that if they detonate enough, the ashes will be all that is left and that, in some fashion, is what God in their conception desires.
Perhaps there can be no diplomatic solution until those who live close to ISIS declare their opposition. Even then, it is unlikely that ISIS would ever wish to talk diplomatically. It is outside their realm of belief and operation.
In short, the West and in many ways East face an enemy who does not and will not share any sensibilities with which we are familiar or used to. My fear is that in combating such an enemy we, too, might become ravenous monsters for whom there is no redemption. We cannot become that which we oppose, but we must learn how to stand in opposition to the terror that has coalesced as ISIS.
Comments
Post a Comment