In the Monday edition of the New York Times Paul Krugman, deviating from his usual subject of economics, said that the objective of ISIS was to terrorize non-believers. It’s true that the “Caliphate” has a holy duty to terrorize its enemies, but this is not the main objective.
In the March edition of Atlantic Magazine, Graeme Wood, an expert on millenial islamism says, “For certain true believers—the kind who long for epic good-versus-evil battles—visions of apocalyptic bloodbaths fulfill deep psychological needs……. These include the belief that there will be only 12 legitimate caliphs, Baghdadi being the eighth; that the armies of Rome will mass to meet the armies of Islam in northern Syria; and that Islam’s final showdown with an anti-Messiah will occur in Jerusalem after a period of renewed Islamic conquest”. (Mr. Wood’s article has been precised for this posting).
Dabiq is the town in North West Syria repeatedly mentioned in ISIS propaganda where the Islamic State believes that the armies of “Rome” (read the US and its allies) will set up camp and will be comprehensively destroyed. The Islamic State’s propagandists drool with anticipation of this event, and expect it will come soon. The state’s magazine quotes Zarqawi as saying, “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.”
What ISIS is doing with its recent attacks is trying to lure the West onto the plains of Dabiq, initiating the countdown to the apocalypse. Is Obama is right – don’t give them the bloodthirsty pleasure of seeing their stupid prophesies fulfilled – don’t send conventional troops? Or should we, with our overwhelming superiority in military force, meet them in Dabiq and annihilate them once and for all, demonstrating the stupidity of believing in medieval, religious fortune telling?
Tomorrow, I will pursue the subject and describe what they think will happen after the expected defeat of the crusaders.
I think Obama is right. Many oppotunisitic neocons have criticised him over his percieved lack of action, when really what they want is another war. Recent experience shows that western intervention is not very effective, however well intentioned. We should try to contain ISIS, but destroying then and rebuilding the aftermath is the duty of the Muslim countries in the Middle East, not us. Yes the Middle East is a violent place, but that was arguably caused by our actions in Iraq. Intervening again would only make things worse. In any case, we’re not responsible for the welbeing of people outisde our borders. We should prioritise looking after our own. I’m certain Epicurus, with his aversion to politics and war, would have agreed.