The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, but also wider propaganda. It's for recruitment but also an attempt to scare potential interveners - like us or Jordan - and their opponents/people in 'their' territory.

Is the scaring part going to work?

I doubt Baghdadi, who has long experience in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, seriously believes the West can be "scared." I think overwhelmingly they are using the videos for recruitment. The reason they were willing to free Western hostages in exchange for money is because at a certain amount of money they value the money more than the statement they can make. The Jordanian never had a chance, however. He was a Muslim who had bombed ISIS, and ISIS has suffered a lot of strategic set backs because of the bombing campaign, and likely wanted to make an example of the pilot.

I think at a point ISIS was playing Jordan smart, they knew that support in Jordan was very low for involvement in a war that Jordanians see as "unconnected" to them, and also in which they feel they are "helping" Assad, who is despised in Jordan. They put the King in a position where he looks weak if he gives up the suicide bomber and he enrages the influential tribe the pilot was from if he let the pilot die instead of releasing her. But, with it being apparent the pilot was killed on January 3rd I think that undermines what ISIS was trying to do. I've also heard, despite that there is a Bedouin mentality at play in which some code of honor mandates vengeance because of the manner in which they killed the pilot; the pulse in Jordan now is one of revenge lust, not anger at the King over being involved in the war. I have no idea how true that is.

[Jacob]

Yeah, that video - or even just the images - very much triggers a "kill the fuckers" response, I'd think. That's certainly my gut reaction.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Is the scaring part going to work?

I think there's two elements to it. On the one hand it's for scaring their opponents. It might work. I think their brutality is probably as helpful in causing Iraqi regiments to collapse as causing the Kurds to dig in. If you know what they'll do to if they get you then I'd guess you'll either run away or fight to the death.

The other side is scaring the communities, the tribes, the villages in their territory or that they take over. And I think that's likely to be very successful. Would you rise up against a group like this?

As for us or Jordan, maybe. I can see it prompting a reluctance to send ground troops - though Western reluctance has other sources too.

I think the primary target of any fear aspect are Sunni tribal leaders. Keep in mind Baghdadi has a history as a higher up in Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Sunni Awakening and the American troop surge really did the anti-American insurgency in. I do think ISIS wants any Sunni tribal leaders who would dare have any other ideas in their head be too afraid to act against ISIS, and  ISIS has also massacred hundreds of them to emphasize this point.

I don't believe the Iraqi military collapsed out of fear off ISIS. I think they collapsed because they were wholly incompetent but also because the government didn't give a shit about defending "Shiite or Kurdish" areas, which is where it all started in Iraq. By the time they realized this was a mistake ISIS had strong positions very close to Baghdad. It reminds me a bit of Goodluck Jonathan's behavior in Nigeria,where he largely doesn't seem to give a shit about Boko Haram, because they are primarily ravaging the Muslim northeast, and he's a Christian from the South. You'd think someone smart enough to seize power in a rough tumble, dagger in the back kind of country (both Nigeria and Iraq) would realize the folly of this kind of thinking but apparently not.

Also with Iraq's Army they apparently allowed it to become extremely sectarian. Sunni soldiers have no instilled mindset that it's their job to protect non-Sunni, and that was a big problem that they're trying to rectify.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's a lot to that, though there are a couple of tribes who are in ISIS territory and still totally opposed to and fighting them. My own feeling is that, as with the insurgency, the best hope of beating ISIS in Iraq will go through the Sunni tribes.

On the sectarian side of things, I read a piece today saying there's barely any difference between the Iraqi military and Iranian backed militias.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't know too much about Baghdadi but I suspect everything ISIS is doing is born out of what he views as the flawed strategy of Al-Qaeda based on his involvement with the group. AQI under al-Zawahiri was probably every bit as brutal as ISIS is (although they eventually toned it down due to AQ's leaders deciding that such brutality hurts their ideological placement and messaging with the Muslim world) but was still primarily a guerrilla insurgent band. AQ in general has never been territorial, the al-Nusra Front sort of was in Syria, but it was an offshoot that itself was sort of wildly out of control before it was mostly subsumed by ISIS.

AQ's doctrine has been more ideological, and more about undermining society with terrorist attacks, and particularly if possible spectacular terrorist attacks on the West. AQ's leadership has never valued the acquisition of territory probably at least partially because the now deceased original leadership of AQ knew what it was like from fighting the Soviets to try and hold territory against a first world military power. Baghdadi seems to believe territory is essential for lasting power, and depending on his intelligence he may be savvy enough to realize that at this point in history unlike 10 years ago, there is no realistic threat of a meaningful Western ground invasion. But with any half competent ground force to fight them it'll be near impossible for ISIS to continue holding territory when its enemies have 100% air superiority, modern conventional warfare (the only kind that can take and hold territory) is night impossible to win when your enemy controls the skies. The only reason ISIS hasn't basically been pushed out of all the cities it holds is because the only ground force actually competent and willing to do the fighting (the Peshmerga) is just too small, they can only operate in 1-2 places at once in terms of major offensives. The Iraqi Army is still in disarray and Assad seems content to hunker down during all of this, and given how long he had been fighting before ISIS emerged he may not be able to try and take advantage of the allied bombing campaign.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think there's a lot to that, though there are a couple of tribes who are in ISIS territory and still totally opposed to and fighting them. My own feeling is that, as with the insurgency, the best hope of beating ISIS in Iraq will go through the Sunni tribes.

On the sectarian side of things, I read a piece today saying there's barely any difference between the Iraqi military and Iranian backed militias.

One of the region's real military forces, probably eventually Iraq's if they can get even a few tens of thousand actually up to "real soldier" level of training would be able to sweep ISIS out of any held territory pretty quickly given the immense allied aerial support. The problem then goes back to the problem you always have with groups like that, or the Taliban, once you take their territory it just becomes an interminable guerrilla war.

[Sheilbh]

I think the other ideological development of ISIS with territorial holding is the sectarian element. It was there with al-Qaeda but far less emphasised. Whereas it's absolutely key with ISIS. As I said earlier the first murder video I remember was them killing some Iraqi truck drivers who'd been pulled over and were asked about how you should pray in the morning. Their answers identified them as Shia, so they were beheaded.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, AQ actually cited the same 13th century Islamic judge as ISIS does in justifying killing other Muslims. Namely, his rulings could be interpreted to say that even a Muslim of the same sect as you that simply practices Islam slightly differently can be declared a non-Muslim and thus killing them is not a sin. But AQ never really seemed to be vigorous about enforcing that like ISIS has. To some degree I suspect that's because AQ was okay with people signing up from different schools of Islamic thought as long as they were willing to toe AQ's ideology in the here and now. ISIS on the other hand seems to be much more about kill first ask questions later, at least at times. ISIS is full of contradictions though, most of the Western recruits are so ignorant of Islam that many of them who have returned and been asked various things have revealed extreme ignorance about basic Islamic thought. According to a Daily Beast article some of them literally read "Islam for Dummies" as preparation for their trip to Syria/Iraq to join ISIS. You would think those guys would be as ill prepared to answer a doctrine quiz as those unfortunate Shia truck drivers, but apparently ISIS prizes Western fighters enough not to care.

[Monoriu]

Why do they prefer western fighters?  Their passports?

[Grey Fox]

Better training, actual aiming skills?

[Admiral Yi]

They probably come cheaper.

[Monoriu]

Better training, actual aiming skills?

I am not sure if the aiming skill of a random dude in France is better than a random dude in Iraq.  Actually, my bet is that the average Iraqi probably has more experience with a firearm than a random Muslim dude in France. 

[Sheilbh]

Well the French guy tried to join insurgents in Iraq and the French Foreign Legion. I think he's what I mean by the psycopath type. The sort attracted to violence.

In terms of why they want Westerners I don't know why, or even if they terribly want them. Maybe they're good for propaganda and are a useful weapon?

[Razgovory]

I think the propaganda value of the killings is that they can demonstrate strength.  The message they send is, "We can kill American/Japanese/whoever and get away with it."  Islamic militarism like Arab nationalism before it suppose is an effort to be strong.  The people in the Middle East know they are weak, and they hate it.  Anything that gives even the illusion of strength is welcome, and that's what the killings give.  The antidote is military defeat, like what ISIS suffered in Kobani last week.

[Monoriu]

The killings is what makes me aware of them.  Absent the killings, someone like me won't care about ISIS.  So it is probably a case of "there is no such thing as bad publicity".