It’s Time for American Policymakers to Think Seriously about ISIS

Today on NRO

RICH LOWRY: Fifty Shades of Grey: The proper response to Christian's obsession would be a good kick in the groin. Creep Meets Girl.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The underlying causes of chaos in the Middle East are indigenous. But Obama hasn't helped. Five Middle East Blunders.

KATHERINE TIMPF: A Seattle science teacher was concerned students "weren't learning about their own privilege." New High-School Physics Curriculum Includes Lessons on White Privilege.

THOMAS SOWELL: Selective schools don't exist to dispense favors to less fortunate individuals. What the 'Social Justice' Attack on Admissions Standards Gets Wrong.

SLIDESHOW: Brian Williams's Tall Tales.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

February 17, 2015

It's Time for American Policymakers to Think Seriously about ISIS

An important piece, over in The Atlantic:

Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State's countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate's supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. 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.

Connoisseurs of discussions of Islamic extremism since 9/11 will identify several concepts once dismissed as "Islamophobic" or unfit for public discussion.

Read the whole thing. It's long, but detailed, and is honest enough to state that the best response to the Islamic State isn't clear:

One way to un-cast the Islamic State's spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding. Former pledges could of course continue to attack the West and behead their enemies, as freelancers. But the propaganda value of the caliphate would disappear, and with it the supposed religious duty to immigrate and serve it. If the United States were to invade, the Islamic State's obsession with battle at Dabiq suggests that it might send vast resources there, as if in a conventional battle. If the state musters at Dabiq in full force, only to be routed, it might never recover.

On the other hand, once they're no longer running that territory . . . who does run it? And can they ensure that the Islamic State wouldn't come back a few years later?

The Media's Difficulty in Perceiving Christians as Victims

A point or two that I may not have made clearly enough in last night's appearance on Greta Van Susteren . . .

Sure, the weekend was a busy news weekend, and thus it's easy to justify most of the New York Times' front-page stories: the Denmark shooting, a more in-depth examination of the scandal that brought down Oregon governor John Kitzhaber, a fascinating story about an imam in Illinois accused of abuse, which some might not expect the Times to write and spotlight. The lead article on the New York City economy is pretty justifiable, considering that it's a New York newspaper.

If I were the editor, I would have put the beheaded Egyptian Christians on the front page and the John Podesta profile or the obituary for Philip Levine on A7. Ron Fournier's point that the print edition is less relevant than it used to be is a fair one, but a larger point still stands. It may have been more useful to expand our discussion beyond this particular choice by the NYT's late-night front-page editor to U.S. national media coverage as a whole.

For example, CNN's religion site just declared, attempting to wrap up the week:

Whether you believe that religious violence is fueled by faith or is a symptom of larger factors -- political instability, poverty, cultural chaos -- one thing seems clear: Last week was hellish for religion.

Across several continents, including North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, scores of religious believers suffered and died in brutal attacks over the past seven days.

The causes of violence are complex, and reducing them to talking points only adds to the problem, scholars say. But if you want to rally troops to your side, few tools are more powerful than religion, said Michael Jerryson, co-editor of "The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence."

From that painfully generic description, you could easily conclude the violence is perpetrated by Buddhists and Mennonites. Deeper in the story, we see the perpetrators identified: Boko Haram (twice), the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, that North Carolina atheist, and the Denmark shooters. ("One of these things is not like the other . . .")

Last night I argued that in most media newsrooms, the notion of Christians as victims doesn't fit their usual narratives. Fournier argued that there are a lot of Christians in the Times newsroom, and that the Times has a lot of reporters in the Middle East, covering the Islamic State, at considerable risk to themselves. Both points are true but neither really refutes my argument.

For starters, sure, there are Christians in the Times newsroom, but not particularly representative ones. Here's Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist, back in 2003: "Nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans. That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians."

If you swim in a secular culture for most of your young-adult and professional life, you're going to end up with some gaps in your knowledge: "I understand how it can happen. You go to Columbia School of Journalism, you work at the New York Times, you were raised in a secular family, and somebody says, 'Ephesians.' And you go, What's the name of that book again?'"

It's natural that American media's coverage of religion would primarily focus upon how it is practiced here in the United States. But in these stories, we keep seeing a simple narrative that usually depicts Christians in some sort of position of power, attempting to force their will upon unwilling participants -- Hobby Lobby refusing to provide birth control to employees, Chik-fil-A owners daring to oppose gay marriage. Alternately, Christians are depicted as some sort of strange, vaguely dangerous backwater folk, often by their own choice (and in some cases, by marketing). Think of the Robertsons of Duck Dynasty or the Duggars of TLC.

Finally, some newsroom denizens practice an open contempt for Christians and/or religion in general: The Washington Post's Sally Quinn had no problem openly declaring, "When It Comes to Hateful Internet Speech, Christians Are the Worst." Separately, the President of the United States just did an interview with Vox's Matt Yglesias, who once declared, "I take an old-school Jacobin-style line that religion should be stamped out."

The coverage of Christians abroad is pretty skimpy -- other than when Pope Francis says something that progressives like. Some of this may reflect the American public's intermittent-at-best interest in international news. Some of the blame for the media's lack of coverage of persecutions of Christians abroad may fall on American churches for not discussing it enough.

But note that one of The Daily Show's recurring tropes was spotlighting some no-name Christian or preacher who claimed victim status and scoffing at how ridiculous the claim was. Sure, some of those figures may come across as whiners, a little too eager to tell everyone how unfairly they're being treated, but to The Daily Show and its audience, the idea of an American Christian thinking he's being oppressed or being treated unfairly by someone more powerful was the joke itself.

Lindsey Graham, 2016's Fly in the Ointment

Our old friend Byron York writes about Senator Lindsey Graham's dream of becoming president . . . and apparently in the process making his home state of South Carolina largely irrelevant in the 2016 nomination process.

Graham leads South Carolina in a new Marist poll with 17 percent; Jeb Bush is at 15 percent, Scott Walker at 12 percent, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson at 10 percent each.

ADDENDA: The first book from our Charlie Cooke, The Conservatarian Manifesto, hits bookstore shelves in about a month. Pre-order now!

Jay Nordlinger: "The man's entire presidency might be described as a selfie."

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

Withering Slights: The Bent Pin Collection, 2007 to 2012
By Florence King and from National Review

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences or unsubscribe, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

It’s Time for American Policymakers to Think Seriously about ISIS

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs