The ISIS Playbook: Yes, There Is One
P. Schultz
Below is a
link to an article written by one Scott Atran, in which he argues quite
persuasively that ISIS is much worse than “mindless terrorists,” that they have
what might be called a “playbook,” entitled “Management of Savagery/Chaos.” And
of course as Atran argues this is worth studying by “the West” so as to better
understand what ISIS is about and what to expect from them.
As the
title suggests, the ISIS strategy is to create chaos in “the West,” among what
it calls “the crusaders” and “the Zionists” by attacking them where they are
“soft” or vulnerable, such as resorts or soccer stadiums or, as we know now,
Paris. They are also focused on recruiting new members, especially from the
young, who are “rebellious” and ready for sacrifice. And, conversely, the
message “the West” has are mostly “negative” and mass messaging, rather than
intimate.
This is,
for me, all quite interesting and even revealing. And surely Atran is correct
that “treating Isis as a form of “terrorism” or “violent
extremism” masks the menace. Merely dismissing it as “nihilistic” reflects a
willful and dangerous avoidance of trying to comprehend, and deal with, its
profoundly alluring moral mission to change and save the world.” Certainly,
Atran is correct to emphasize the fact that ISIS has a “profoundly alluring
moral mission,” one that appeals to the young and the despised. And this, if
taken seriously, would help “the West” understand ISIS in a way it does not
today, when it seems all too likely to dismiss this phenomenon as a kind of
insanity or simple minded “religious extremism.”
But
what Atran’s argument lacks is any consideration of how the strategy of “the
West” plays into the hands of ISIS for that strategy seems to be also the management of savagery and chaos. As has
been pointed out, here and elsewhere, “the West” seems content with fighting
what seem to be losing wars, e.g., in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why is this the
case? Perhaps because, from the perspective of those fighting these wars,
“losing” is actually “winning” in that chaos in the Middle East is the goal, to
say nothing of the fact that losing wars does little or nothing to damage those
who wield power, the ruling class. So, those in power achieve both the chaos
they seek, a chaos that is being used to advance what are labeled “regime
changes” in the Middle East, while fortifying “the West’s” allies like Saudi
Arabia and Israel. And at the same time, these power brokers are fortifying
their own status and the regime within which they operate, as any attempt at
dissent can be portrayed as almost treasonous.
The
point is this: “the West,” like ISIS, is attempting to manage savagery and
chaos, as it were. This means that “the West” is not fully committed to warding
off ISIS’s attacks, as these attacks create more chaos. Is it a dangerous game
“the West” in playing? Of course it is, extremely dangerous. And it is also
deadly, especially for the innocent, in “the West” or in the Middle East. But
if it shortsighted of “the West” to underrate the allure of ISIS, it is also shortsighted
to underrate the extent to which “the West” will go to impose its will on the
world. And while it is useful and necessary to study ISIS as Atran does so
well, it is also just as useful and necessary to study “the West” and its brand
of imperialized politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment