I think it should be a requirement that anyone who wants to write about Da’esh should at the very least have travelled to present-day Syria or Iraq at least once, and communicated with people involved in the war. I’m not necessarily saying that your argument is wrong, just that the actual situation seems far more nuanced.
For instance, can you provide an argument that increased committment of troops is “exactly what ISIS wants.”? It seems like something oft-mentioned on “pundit” blogs but rarely justified through argument or evidence. Sure, it makes sense that Da’esh would enjoy more radicalized Muslims, but it doesn’t seem like it would enjoy the “intensive assault and attack” part.
I’d like to see an article dealing with the actual reasons people decide to join Da’esh. And I’d also like to see a realistic analysis of the actual—not percieved—threat that Da’esh poses to the World. And I’d also like to see an analysis of the reasons why Da’esh succeeded in its latest attacks. Did it expertly fool law enforcement/security agencies? Or did they have adequate warning but chose to not act on their intelligence? So far the evidence seems to point to the latter possibility.
For instance, can you provide an argument that increased committment of troops is “exactly what ISIS wants.”?
Why is “what ISIS wants” relevant here. ISIS is a bunch of fanatics who have a rather distorted model of reality. It may be that they want an increased commitment of troops because they believe it will lead to the prophesied climactic battle that ends with Allah destroying the unbelievers.
Why isn’t it a relevant question to understand the motivations of your enemy? Unless you’re saying that Da’esh has no motivation and is just doing things randomly.
It may be that they want an increased commitment of troops because they believe it will lead to the prophesied climactic battle that ends with Allah destroying the unbelievers.
It may be, sure, but it may also be that they want everyone to think that about them, in order to produce fear. Appearing totally crazy is often a good strategy in warfare.
Unfortunately, op-eds are limited to 700 words, so no way to make that sort of analysis possible. By definition, with this word count, the analysis has to be simplified and clear messages conveyed. Believe me, as an academic I am used to writing 20,000-word essays or 140,000 word books. This is a different genre that serves a different purpose.
(Disclaimer: politics is the mind-killer.)
I think it should be a requirement that anyone who wants to write about Da’esh should at the very least have travelled to present-day Syria or Iraq at least once, and communicated with people involved in the war. I’m not necessarily saying that your argument is wrong, just that the actual situation seems far more nuanced.
For instance, can you provide an argument that increased committment of troops is “exactly what ISIS wants.”? It seems like something oft-mentioned on “pundit” blogs but rarely justified through argument or evidence. Sure, it makes sense that Da’esh would enjoy more radicalized Muslims, but it doesn’t seem like it would enjoy the “intensive assault and attack” part.
I’d like to see an article dealing with the actual reasons people decide to join Da’esh. And I’d also like to see a realistic analysis of the actual—not percieved—threat that Da’esh poses to the World. And I’d also like to see an analysis of the reasons why Da’esh succeeded in its latest attacks. Did it expertly fool law enforcement/security agencies? Or did they have adequate warning but chose to not act on their intelligence? So far the evidence seems to point to the latter possibility.
Why is “what ISIS wants” relevant here. ISIS is a bunch of fanatics who have a rather distorted model of reality. It may be that they want an increased commitment of troops because they believe it will lead to the prophesied climactic battle that ends with Allah destroying the unbelievers.
Why isn’t it a relevant question to understand the motivations of your enemy? Unless you’re saying that Da’esh has no motivation and is just doing things randomly.
It may be, sure, but it may also be that they want everyone to think that about them, in order to produce fear. Appearing totally crazy is often a good strategy in warfare.
It’s not directly relevant to the argument you were making.
Unfortunately, op-eds are limited to 700 words, so no way to make that sort of analysis possible. By definition, with this word count, the analysis has to be simplified and clear messages conveyed. Believe me, as an academic I am used to writing 20,000-word essays or 140,000 word books. This is a different genre that serves a different purpose.
Well, there’s no word limit on LW, so you’re quite welcome to write out your thoughts.