Understanding/Defeating ISIS

Donald Trump told Newsmax TV back in July of last year, that he would “bomb the hell” out of the Islamic State (ISIS) if he was elected to the White House. And then in December, Ted Cruz uttered what seems to be his favorite line on ISIS: “We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion.”

But bombing is most likely the wrong way to defeat ISIS, especially if that is the primary offensive method used.

Last month Lt. Col. Brian Steed, a military historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, gave a learned lecture at the Kansas City Public Library. A specialist on the Middle East, Steed spoke on “Mesopotamia on Fire: Changing the Conversation on ISIS.”

Earlier that day (Feb. 23), Steed was interviewed by KCUR’s Steve Kraske. That 24-minute interview was linked to (see here) under the title “Defeating ISIS By Understanding It.”

Unfortunately, I don’t get the impression that the candidates seeking to become President have a very adequate understanding of ISIS, except perhaps for HRC.

I was very favorably impressed with Steed—especially when I heard him in person. Even though he is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, he made it clear that he was speaking as a private citizen—and when he is in Baghdad, he apparently speaks in Arabic.

One of the important points of his lecture was this: we see the cruelty of ISIS when there is television footage of beheadings and executions of individuals. But such cruelties are no worse than that resulting from U.S. bombing of ISIS targets or from using drones to kill ISIS combatants, often with civilians being killed as “collateral damage.”

It is clips of the latter that are shown on television in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries—and the hatred for the U.S. deepens with each such telecast. Such clips are recruitment tools for ISIS.

What surprised me most from hearing Steed’s lecture was that ISIS believes that Jesus (yes, that Jesus) is coming soon and he will kill the Dajjal (the Antichrist) and will establish “Islam and its justice” over the whole world.

(Khilafah = Caliphate)

The final decisive battle, according to the apocalyptic mythology that seems to be driving much of the activity of ISIS will take place at Dabiq, a place in Syria that is about 150 miles north of Israel’s Mount Megiddo, where according to popular Christian apocalyptic thought the battle of Armageddon will be fought.

Dabiq is also the name of a glossy propaganda magazine published by ISIS. It is said to be “sophisticated, slick, beautifully produced and printed in several languages including English.” It is used in recruiting jihadists from the West. (Here is the link to Dabiq’s webpage.)

This same information was presented a year ago in the Atlantic magazine, which I either didn’t hear about or didn’t pay attention to. (See the bibliographical information given below.)

Graeme Wood, author of the Atlantic’s article, insists that ISIS is very Islamic—but an extreme, apocalyptic form of Islam that is opposed by other forms of Islam and by the majority of Muslims in the world today.

In the Spring 2016 issue of Plough Quarterly (see here), Nathaniel Peters writes, “Wood is right. Islamic extremism is a theological problem. But how do we go about solving it? The solution to the theological problem must be theological, not military." 

The long-term strategy for defeating ISIS must be in the realm of ideas, or “narratives,” to use the term Steed emphasized, rather than bombs and military force. The sooner our political leaders learn that the better.

 Links to important articles

“ISIS Says Jesus is Coming Soon, and the End of the World” by Karen L. Willoughby – February 17, 2015, article in Christian Examiner (here)

“What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood – Cover story of the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic (here)

“What ISIS Really Wants: The Response” by Graeme Wood – February 25, 2015, issue of The Atlantic (here)

"Nie wieder Krieg!"

February 13 was a special day when I was growing up, for it was my mother’s birthday. I wrote about that last year at this time, for it was the 100^th anniversary of her birth. She was born on Friday the 13^th and this year the 13^th (today) fell on Friday again.

Little did I know as a boy that February 13 was also the beginning of one of the great tragedies in modern history. It wasn’t a Friday, but February 13, 1945, was an incredibly “unlucky” day for the people of Dresden, Germany. The firebombing of Dresden began on that day 70 years ago.

That catastrophe has been called “the worst war crime of WWII,” even worse than the atomic devastation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. While that is a very questionable claim, there is no doubt that the bombing of Dresden was a terribly tragic event.

In the 1950s I learned at least something of the horrors of the bombings in Japan, long before I went to Japan to live and work—and to visit the sites of those bombings. But it was not until the early 1970s when I first became aware of the horrible devastation of Dresden.

My introduction to the bombing of Dresden came via the book “Slaughterhouse-Five” (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut, who was actually a prisoner of war in Dresden at the time. He survived the firebombing by being held in Schlachthof Fünf (Slaughterhouse 5).

Vonnegut’s book is a satirical novel about the experiences of a soldier named Billy Pilgrim, who experienced, and survived, the firebombing of Dresden. But it is clearly semi-autobiographical, for Vonnegut was there as a 22-year-old U.S. army private who had been a POW since December 1944.

I was much impressed by Vonnegut’s book, in spite of (or because of?) all its eccentricities. Later when composing a list of my “top ten” novels, “Slaughterhouse-Five” made that list.

Last fall after reading it again, I made this notation: “Very much enjoyed reading this book again; it was as engaging as I had remembered from the first time & still on my top ten.” That is largely because in its own surreal way, Vonnegut’s masterful book carries a powerful anti-war message.

But Vonnegut’s work is a work of fiction and perhaps includes, and has led to, some exaggerations, both as regards the total number of causalities and the sinister motives behind the bombing.

Recent books, such as “Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945” (2004) by British historian Frederick Taylor, give more historically accurate information.

In the concluding paragraph of the preface of his tome of more than 500 pages, Taylor writes,

Perhaps if there is a moral conclusion it can only be found in the German phrase that I heard again and again from the lips of Dresdeners, spoken with a passion born of terrible experience: Nie wieder Krieg. Never again war. With the terrible weapons of mass destruction at its disposal, humanity can no longer afford intolerance and war, and that is the ultimate lesson of the bombing of Dresden.

I think Vonnegut, who died in 2007, would have agreed with Taylor’s powerful statement.

But now with the ruthlessness and barbarity of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (also referred to as ISIS or ISIL), which is neither truly Islamic nor a real state, there seems to be growing clamor for the U.S. to use greater military force to crush that evil terrorist organization.

But is that wise? And might that possibly lead to another Dresden, or even to another Hiroshima?

Nie wieder Krieg! That is my deep hope and fervent prayer.

Is IS Isolatable?

To state the obvious, the so-called Islamic State (IS) is now a colossal problem for the peace-loving people of the world.

We started hearing about that extremist group as ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Then as it became evident that their goal and scope was larger, it began to be called ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.)

(The Levant is an area that includes not only Syria but also Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.)

On June 29, the group announced that its name is now just “Islamic State” and that they have established a caliphate. The caliph, who is the “leader for Muslims everywhere,” is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

 

The flag of the Islamic State

 Of course, the U.S. and most countries of the world do not recognize IS as a legitimate state—and most Muslims in the world do not recognize al-Baghdadi (b. 1971) as their leader.

Still, IS is a threat not only to the non-Sunni people of the Near East but also to peaceable people everywhere. It is a vicious terrorist organization bent on controlling more and more territory by force, as well as by propaganda.

To better understand IS, a “must-see” video can be viewed here. It was made by VICE News journalist and filmmaker Medyan Dairieh, who for three weeks had unprecedented and exclusive access inside IS.

This video presents an alarming account of a truly terrifying group. Something must be done to stop their relentless spread across Iraq, and elsewhere. But what?

A couple of weeks ago, 50 religious conservatives publicly stated that the U.S. must "destroy" IS. (Russell Moore, about whom I recently wrote, here, was one of those 50.) That sounded a lot like a questionable call for a holy war.

And even peace-loving Pope Francis has said with regard to IS,

. . . where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say this: it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor. I underline the verb: stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means. . . . To stop the unjust aggressor is licit.

James Bretzke, a priest and professor of moral theology at Boston College, declares, “This is the most pronounced endorsement of the use of force of any pope . . . in the last 100 years.”

To be sure, doing nothing with regard to IS and its relentless spread is not a viable option. The question, of course, is what could and should be done.

The Pope went on to say that no country should act alone, and that there should be an agreement within the international community, possibly through the United Nations, before embarking on a military campaign.

He also warned against an all-out war, insisting that force could be justified only to "stop" the Islamic State.

Then on Wednesday, 53 religious leaders sent President Obama a letter encouraging him to “move beyond” war in Iraq/Syria.

That seems to be what the President is trying to do at this point.

Many conservatives are opposed to that, calling for the destruction, not just the containment, of IS. For example, Princeton University Professor Robert P. George has authored a petition calling upon the President and Congress to not stop, not contain, but destroy IS.

George’s petition can be found here, and the first signature after his is Russell Moore’s.

But seeking the containment, or isolation, of IS is far better—because it is less violent and would elicit less retaliation.

But is IS isolatable? Probably. But it certainly won’t be easy.

Who is a Christian (or a Muslim)?

Every label used to describe persons has to be defined to be accurate. For example, if we are asked whether we or others are Christians, our answer will depend on the definition of what being a Christian means.

There are at least three types of people who might be labeled as Christians.

(1) First there are those who can be called cultural Christians. These are the people born in what is generally considered a Christian country or a Christian community, so they are Christians because of where, or to whom, they were born.

Many such “Christians” were baptized as infants and were raised as part of a Christian culture. In most cases, being a cultural Christian is much like being, say, an American.

Thus, the label “Christian” is a result of birth, not choice. It has little to do with belief, although it usually involves following certain customs, traditions, and rites common in the community.

Of course, it is the same with Muslims: many people who are labeled “Muslim” are mainly cultural Muslims.

(2) Then, there are people who can be called confessional Christians. These are the ones who have made a conscious decision to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and that decision usually involves making a “profession of faith” and being baptized, or in the case of those who were baptized as infants, being confirmed after learning in a catechism class what it means to be a Christian.

Most of these people were born in Christian homes and/or in a Christian culture. But now they are more than merely Christians by birth; they are Christian believers through their choice to follow Jesus and to be identified with the church as the “body of Christ.”

Of course, there are many Muslims who are such by their deliberately choosing to follow Allah as revealed by Mohammad in the Quran (Koran).

(3) Further, there are some who can be called coerced Christians. These are the people who have been forced, usually by cultural Christians but sometimes, certainly, by confessional Christians to convert to Christianity.

Many of the “pagans” in medieval Europe were converted by the threat of the imperial sword, especially by Charlemagne. Non-Christians in Spain were forced to convert, leave the country, or face death in the Inquisition that beginning in 1492 was directed especially against the Jews and Muslims by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

Those royal monarchs commissioned Columbus’s voyage. So it is no surprise that Columbus and the priests who went with him coerced “Indians” to be Christians. Later in British North America, many Protestant political and religious leaders did the same among Native Americans.

The same sort of thing has been a part of Islamic history from its beginning—and it is still occurring in Syria and Iraq, especially by those who are a part of ISIL, which is now often called the Islamic State (IS).

While many of us would like to think that the “real” Christians (or Muslims) are those who are confessional Christians (or Muslims), in reality there are far more cultural Christians (or Muslims) that those who are Christians (or Muslims) by their choice and commitment to Jesus (or Mohammad) and the Bible (or the Quran).

Accordingly, the clashes/wars between Christians and Muslims are primarily between cultural Christians and cultural Muslims, and their actions are often in serious conflict with the core teachings of their religions.

Thus, I think the President was correct when, in speaking recently of the tragic beheading of journalist Jim Foley, he stated that “ISIL speaks for no religion. . . . no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”