The Virus that is ISIS

Coalition air strike on ISIS positions in Kobani, Northern Syria, October 2014
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Voice of America

Schuyler Moore has just published a very interesting idea about ISIS in her post Why Saudi Arabia May Be the Next Syria. The idea is that ISIS should be considered like a virus that can not be destroyed simply by eliminating it from its present host. Moore does not describe it that way, but that it is pretty much what she is saying. 

The Viral Nature of ISIS

The problem is that ISIS is composed of individuals from many countries who have an allegiance more to a set of ideas than to a particular organization or country. If they should eventually be pushed out of Syria and Iraq, they can transplant themselves to any of a number of countries in which ISIS or any other jihadist organization has a toe-hold. This assumes, of course, they are not

annihilated to a man where they are fighting. However, since they are already present in countries like Yemen, Libya and Egypt, the airborne virus of ISIS has already infected a number of other hosts.

There are several aspects of jihadists that give them their more decentralized and epidemic characteristics, not present in more conventional opponents such as Russia and China. From their own point of view, the soldiers of ISIS are in the service of Allah, and are preparing the way for the Apocalypse. In addition to more worldly inducements such as the 72 virgins awaiting Islamic martyrs, ISIS – as well as Al Qaeda – plays on feelings of oppression and inferiority at the hands of Western civilization. From the works of Bernard Lewis, one of the most highly regarded experts on Islam and the Middle East and a Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, one can read of the Islamic apprehensions and suspicions of the West developed over time. Muslims are especially wary and apprehensive of any modernization based on Western Ideas. See references [H3], [H4]. and [H6] for Lewis’ in-depth discussion of these historical developments. These apprehensions are enhanced by the embarrassment that they, the holders of the one true belief in Allah, are dominated by the intellectual and economic success of the West. Should not they, the faithful of Allah, be the ones to dominate? I have the impression the radical jihadis will never forgive us for this embarrassment. They would rather kill us first.

Not even destroying ISIS would motivate its soldiers to drop the fight against the West. It is God whom they serve, and if ISIS ceases to exist, they would still be obligated by their religious beliefs to establish God’s caliphate. They would still have to throw down the Western infidels. They would just have to migrate to another battlefield where they might have a better chance. The viral disease of anti-Western jihadism would travel with them.

One often hears from progressives such as President Obama that we should not speak of any link between ISIS (or Al Qaeda) and Islam. Their reasoning is that if we speak of ISIS or Al Qaeda as Islamic, we will be telling the world, particularly the Islamic portion, that we are at war with Islam itself. If we do that, they claim, we might be uttering a self-fullfiling prophecy that motivates other muslims into joining ISIS’ war on the West. However, it does not matter if some in the West think they are not at war with any portion of Islam. That fraction of Islam that is ISIS certainly is at war with them – and with all the rest of us as well. No amount of wishful thinking can remove us from ISIS’ crosshairs.

What Makes a Country Vulnerable to the Disease

How can we identify which countries might be most susceptible to the virus? First and most obvious, a country with a large population of Muslims would be particularly vulnerable. It would also help the virus if there were a significant fraction of the population poverty-stricken and lacking in hope for their advancement in the future. Even if they are not Muslim, very poor, despairing people who are angry about their position in society are susceptible to conversion to a faith that allows them to strike back. Nations that meet some or all of these criteria, and  also have limited armed forces and/or police forces would be especially vulnerable.

Certainly, almost all if not indeed all middle eastern and many North African countries satisfy these criteria. What is more surprising is that so do many European countries. To a somewhat lesser degree, so does the United States! Europe is particularly susceptible to jihad with its large muslim communities in “no-go” zones in which Muslims resist assimilation. Two very interesting articles documenting European no-go muslim zones by Soeren Kern, one on such zones in France and one on zones in Britain, can be found here and here. Kern defines Muslim no-go zones as follows:

No-go zones are Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims due to a variety of factors, including the lawlessness and insecurity that pervades a great number of these areas. Host-country authorities have effectively lost control over many no-go zones and are often unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim youth.

He also makes the obvious observation that

Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism.

Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

It takes little imagination to envisage such no-go zones becoming ‘base camps’ for Islamic jihad.

Saudi Arabia as a Candidate Host

As a candidate for ISIS’ next host, Schuyler Moore nominates Saudi Arabia. At the level of resistance to ISIS in Syria and Iraq,  Moore notes that it may take “years or even decades” for ISIS to weaken in that area. However, she believes it will ultimately decline there. Where will ISIS – or its successor – go to transfer their flag? Moore writes that

in the event of a relocation, one country in particular looks like a promising alternative – Saudi Arabia. With internal unrest, the threat of oil-driven economic instability and a history of conflict with its neighbors, the House of Saud is ripe for insurgency and would be the ideal next location for jihadists looking for a new rallying point. As ISIS loses steam and is pushed out of its old stomping grounds, Saudi Arabia is in danger of becoming the next ground zero for terrorism in the region.

The population of Saudi Arabia should provide a fertile ground on which ISIS could grow. Moore notes that with a population of 28 million, nearly a third are immigrants who make up over three-quarters of the laborers. In Saudi Arabia both nationals and immigrants live under Sharia law informed by strict Wahhabi principles. As the birth place of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia has a population that is already about halfway to being ISIS adherents. Having an advantage for ISIS of providing an oil income for their jihadi operations, Saudi Arabia also provides growing political turmoil for ISIS to exploit. Moore writes

Saudi Arabia has the potential to be a unifying enemy, with enough ties to the West to fuel radical censure but without the stability of most Western countries to counter an insurgency movement. It provides a platform for recruitment with its youthful population and high unemployment … The royal family is caught between a rock and a hard place, risking censure from radical conservatives if it modernizes and popular discontent if it pushes more stringent Wahhabism on its population. Critically, Saudi Arabia is home to two of the most holy sites of Islamic culture, Mecca and Medina, which makes it a natural rallying point.

Given all this fuel for an insurgency, Moore believes ISIS can quickly take root and provide another base for its caliphate. Even if ISIS can not be pushed entirely out of Syria and Iraq (Given the weakness of Western will-power, who knows?), Saudi Arabia would still provide a highly desirable capital province for its caliphate.

How to Fight a Viral Disease

Since there are more than a few countries to act as petri dishes for the jihadi virus, we have a serious international health problem. So how do health professionals fight a virus? Until drug treatments and vaccines are developed for a specific virus, strict quarantines of infected populations are just about the only way to fight the disease.

The analogue to vaccines and drug treatments would be a campaign to persuade all Muslims that tolerance of other religions and other ways of life, along with a modernization of their societies and commercial trade, would be far more rewarding for them than perpetual war with the West. Such persuasions would inoculate Muslims who agree with this vision against radical Islamic jihadism. To be conclusively persuasive, to be dispositive, such a campaign would have to argue that this vision is fundamentally in agreement with the Quran. In particular, the West would have to argue that the “Verse of the Sword” (Sura 9, verse 5) does not require unrelenting war against the West. How to do this well is beyond my knowledge and wisdom, but this argument about toleration being compatible with the Quran is at the heart of achieving lasting peace between Muslims and the West. The Reality perceived by the West must be made compatible to the different perception of Reality by Muslims.

Nevertheless, while the vaccine against the jihadist virus is being developed, containment of those infected by it must not be neglected. While we attempt to persuade all of the Muslim world about this proposition on toleration, we can not ignore the continuing need to kill members of ISIS and al-Qaeda as much as we can until we achieve such a universal peace. Otherwise we might not live long enough to see the universal peace.

The Problems with Obama’s Approach

A very big problem with Obama’s plan for fighting ISIS is that he does not even recognize the contagious nature of the disease. To the extent that he even recognizes ISIS’ threat, his approach is to do the minimal amount that is politically feasible and to kick the can down the road to the next President. Any delay in putting ISIS permanently out of business increases their influence over other Muslims. Even degrading their military capacity and hold over territory would help to reduce their contagion with other Islamic communities. It would also make them less likely to inspire “lone wolf” attacks. By being oblivious to the contagious nature of radical Islamic jihadism and following a minimalist military campaign, Obama makes more likely the spread of the contagion.

GO TO HOME

Sharing is caring!