I don't think your two points of view are wholly incompatible. Dean seems to be looking at ISIS' short-term tactics, Ulthar at their long-term goals.
Fair enough. I'm a big picture type.
My main disagreement with Ulthar's emphasis is I don't see any "war" here involving the West. Wars are between nation-states. I don't see ISIS as a state, just a band of desert warlords informed by an apocalyptic cult mentality.
To some degree, it's semantics. Or, you know...we could recognize that Fourth Generation Warfare might actually be a thing.
But let's say that N-S's are required for "warfare." What constitutes a nation-state? That outsiders recognize them as such?
Let's examine that. As Graeme Wood wrote in the March 2015 article at theatlantic.com,
"
Control of territory is an essential precondition for the Islamic State’s authority in the eyes of its supporters. This map, adapted from the work of the Institute for the Study of War, shows the territory under the caliphate’s control as of January 15 {2015}, along with areas it has attacked. Where it holds power, the state collects taxes, regulates prices, operates courts, and administers services ranging from health care and education to telecommunications."{my emphasis}
In June of 2014, the area they controlled was larger than the United Kingdom. They have an "official' population of over 8 million people and it is growing.
By what objective measures does that
not satisfy any working definition of a "nation-state?" We have to be very careful about letting textbook and theoretical technicalities get in the way of practical realities.
They also have the tools to wage war. What makes them dangerous as a warring "nation" is their "political leadership" is aligned with USING their force to achieve it's goals. There is little to no restraint.
At present, the US Military boasts a frontline strength of about 1.4 million with about that in active reserve duty personnel. Our military has tremendous force multipliers in the form of technology; but we also have a political machinery that by design hampers the application of this military force. In short, we have to talk things to death and agonize over every little thing. They just go shoot up or bomb cafes.
The other distinction we have to be very careful to make is that our government (rightfully) only sees other 'nation-states' as it's enemy...or, more precisely, only COMBATANTS of those nation-states are our enemies. We do not, rightfully, apply military force to "civilians," even of our enemies. There is STILL hand wringing over the fire bombing of Dresden, for example, or the use of the atomic bombs in Japan.
Putting this in context of the "Generations" of warfare, our government and our military is essentially operationally locked, aside from some Special Forces operations, in the Third Generation.
Their "government" and "military leadership" have no such qualms about killing civilians...precisely because EVERYONE that is not them (including other Muslims don't don't swear allegiance) is their enemy. Our "Western Thinking" on this is creating a huge cost in dealing with them. We are measuring them through OUR lens of "fair play" and "right and wrong" when they have a COMPLETELY different set of rules.
In some ways, I think they must be frustrated that we don't want to play with them. What more do they have to do to get the Crusaders to show up to the Holy War?
I disagree. They don't care about that
at all. I think they are patient and don't care if it takes 1 year, 10 years, or 5 generations.
Philosophically, they've been at this a looooonnnnnnggggg time. Their
belief base strategy is a "spreading of the cancer" not a "blowing of an embolism."
I think we win in the long term---and actually win rather easily, in the grand scheme---simply by not playing the game on their terms.
I'll grant you a "Maybe."
In the meantime, what do you tell the families of the victims of the 1-2 attacks per week...just of the ones we know about, and the mass slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East that they are perpetrating that our media does NOT talk much about?
As I mentioned before, this isn't something we can just ignore and it will go away...they are bringing the fight to US. They already have activity in the United States. There's no question they are active in Europe. We say "No Thanks to your 'war'" and they set off a bomb vest at a mall. Is that a "winning" strategy?
Let them burn themselves out and encourage moderate Muslims. Their radical ideology is unsustainable in the long term.
What data do you have to support THAT assertion? They are GROWING, not declining. They are GAINING support, expanding into new territories, etc.
If you are going to say that, show some data to support it, please. Show me it is even
possible for a movement like this to just burn itself out if it faces precisely zero resistance? Has that EVER happened in history?
As counterpoint, let's turn again to Graeme Wood:
"
Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.
We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it.
...
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature."
ISIS aren't our equals, they aren't a serious threat to our lives or our way of life,
I'm sure a lot of folks in France are wondering about that right now, and not just based on last week's attack.
and they don't deserve the respect and attention we're giving them.
Um, how can you ignore them? They are
killing people. And, more to the point, they are killing people just going about their day-to-day lives, and they swear to keep doing it. There ARE here in the US. They ARE in Europe.
Not a single policy of ours should be affected in any way by ISIS' actions, other than at which coordinates the air force drops their bombs.
This is a very common misconception, but you don't vanquish enemies by dropping bombs (at least conventional bombs). And certainly not THIS enemy that hides among "innocents." It takes 11B's rolling in the mud to the job done. You have to hunt them down.
This notion you can fight this with the psychologically easy "drop bombs at these coordinates" is fantasy. This is Fourth Generation Warfare and to think it can be fought using 3rd GW principles and doctrines is...well, let's take a look at how well the Soviets did in Afghanistan and the US, too, for that matter (yes, we could roll right over the country, but again, our
political leadership will not bear that burden...but that's the entire point of emphasizing the 4GW aspect of this).
Dropping bombs on an encampment here and there is political theater and nothing more. If it was effective strategy, we'd see it working. But, we don't. ISIS is
growing in influence and power.
I am only slightly more afraid of being killed by ISIS than I am of being speared through the back by a unicorn.
I'm not really afraid of being killed by ISIS. That's not the point.
The point is that the threats they represent, if they continue unabated, will eventually rise to the level that regular folks here
will have something to fear. They are not going away unless they are completely defeated.
