Daa'ish "Quietly Preparing for Collapse"? There is in the American discourse a curious policy tangle around Daa'ish: • Republicans demand President Obama act. • Republicans reject President Obama's action plan for not starting a big enough war. • Republicans refuse to draft their own Authorization for the Use of Military Force. • President Obama strikes Daa'ish, anyway, in excess of ten thousand times. • American surveys and polls, for some reason, suggest the American people believe it would be a good idea if President Obama stops doing nothing and starts striking Daa'ish. In policy, punditry, and armchair wonkery circles, the Republican dance is astounding for its curiously nihilistic obstinance. Meanwhile, the president's thin pretext for airstrikes against Daa'ish, relying on George W. Bush's controversial AUMF, is exceptionally dubious. Steve Benen↱ observed, in May: Among Republicans, it's simply assumed that President Obama and his administration are passive and indifferent when it comes to counter-terrorism. In recent months, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), for example, has said the White House's approach to defeating terrorists is simply "rhetorical," and barely exists in practice. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) added in November, "I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country." ‡ As we've discussed, there are all kinds of important questions to ask about the White House's national security policy. Is it meeting its broader objective? Are we deterring and preventing future threats? Are we acting within the rule of law? What are the implications of a policy reliant on drones? Should Americans expect the current national-security policy to remain in place indefinitely? Policymakers never seem to get to these questions, however, in large part because Republicans (a) prefer to pretend the president is simply indifferent to terrorist threats, and (b) are preoccupied with whether the White House uses specific phrases that conservatives find ideologically satisfying. ‡ I'm reminded again of this piece in The Atlantic, in which Jeffrey Goldberg, hardly a liberal, wrote, "Obama has become the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency." And yet, bizarre perceptions linger―most of the public still believes the president hasn't been "tough enough"―probably because Obama's conservative critics simply overlook the record, and the discourse plays along. Will the death of the Taliban leader challenge stale assumptions? Recent history suggests it's unlikely. And, well, yeah, he might have a point. And now, this: Even as it launches waves of terrorist attacks around the globe, the Islamic State is quietly preparing its followers for the eventual collapse of the caliphate it proclaimed with great fanfare two years ago. In public messages and in recent actions in Syria, the group’s leaders are acknowledging the terrorist organization’s declining fortunes on the battlefield while bracing for the possibility that its remaining strongholds could fall. And the whole time, what are we to make of the signals coming in from abroad? Daa'ish is losing territory, but they are raising funds, or maybe losing funds, but growing in number, or possibly declining, but at any rate they are sustaining their atrocious campaign, or else trying to take credit for other people's hits, and anything sounding like good news should be presumed exaggerated. ‡ Islamic State officials, in public statements and in interviews, insist that the group’s “caliphate” project remains viable while also acknowledging that military setbacks have forced a change in strategy. “While we see our core structure in Iraq and Syria under attack, we have been able to expand and have shifted some of our command, media and wealth structure to different countries,” a longtime Islamic State operative, speaking through an Internet-based audio service, said in an interview. “We do have, every day, people reaching out and telling us they want to come to the caliphate,” said the operative, who agreed to speak to a Western journalist on the condition that his name and physical location not be revealed. “But we tell them to stay in their countries and rather wait to do something there.” (Warrick and Mekhennet↱) Shrinking territory is a reality; the Washington Post report notes a consulting firm analysis suggesting the would-be Daa'ish caliphate shrank by twelve percent this year. And while despots often close communications in order to shield their subjects from outside influences, Joby Warrick and Souad Mekhennet find the detail significant enough to include communiques suggesting Daa'ish moved specifically against Internet cafes and satellite dishes in Syrian provinces. And then: A remarkable editorial last month in al-Naba, the Islamic State’s weekly Arabic newsletter, offered a gloomy assessment of the caliphate’s prospects, acknowledging the possibility that all its territorial holdings could ultimately be lost. Just two years ago, jihadist leaders heralded the start of a glorious new epoch in the world’s history with the establishment of their Islamic “caliphate,” which at the time encompassed most of eastern Syria and a vast swath of northern and western Iraq, a combined territory roughly the size of Great Britain. The editorial, titled, “The Crusaders’ Illusions in the Age of the Caliphate,” sought to rally the group’s followers by insisting that the Islamic State would continue to survive, even if all its cities fell to the advancing “crusaders” — the separate Western- and Russian-backed forces arrayed against them. “The crusaders and their apostate clients are under the illusion that . . . they will be able to eliminate all of the Islamic State’s provinces at once, such that it will be completely wiped out and no trace of it will be left,” the article states. In reality, the group’s foes “will not be able to eliminate it by destroying one of its cities or besieging another of them, or by killing a soldier, an emir or an imam,” it says. Brookings Institution researcher Will McCants explained: "They're not trying to be clever about it, but they're really trying to prepare their followers to cope with a 'caliphate' that is no longer a caliphate." Which, in turn, makes a certain amount of sense. Then again, that would be good news; we ought to be dubious. I think. Er ... ... never mind. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Obama admin adds to counter-terrorism record, kills Taliban chief". msnbc. 23 May 2016. msnbc.com. 13 July 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/25hKOCn Warrick, Joby and Souad Mekhennet. "Inside ISIS: Quietly preparing for the loss of the ‘caliphate’". The Washington Post. 12 July 2016. WashingtonPost.com. 13 July 2016. http://wapo.st/29D4RQA
In other words they are preparing to become a more "conventional" terrorist organization perhaps? Keeping in mind the whole dogma associated with the so called "Caliphate", "end times" etc....it could be suggested that their capacity to claim their deluded Islamic moral high ground is certainly reduced. Perhaps this is why the powers that be originally used the words "degrade","Da'esh" etc instead of destroy, annihilate and Islamic State...knowing full well that an ideology can not be destroyed by the use of force. I might add that I consider the world to be actually quite fortunate in a strange twisted way that Da'esh demonstrated extreme brutality and violence so early on in it's initial campaign. For if their approach was more realistic they would probably be comfortably sitting in the UN at the moment claiming the land they have acquired for the better good of Islam as legitimately theirs. However because they were so brutal, violent and excessively manipulative ( hostages etc) they lost any sort of legitimacy, eventually losing all the "official" co-operation they may have thought possible. Yes "we" are very fortunate in a bizarre sort of way IMO
Well, yeah. I like the quotes around "conventional", too; there are plenty of caveats. But right now I'm chuckling because I was reading through that last paragraph in the final block from Warrick and Mekhennet― “The crusaders and their apostate clients are under the illusion that . . . they will be able to eliminate all of the Islamic State’s provinces at once, such that it will be completely wiped out and no trace of it will be left,” the article states. In reality, the group’s foes “will not be able to eliminate it by destroying one of its cities or besieging another of them, or by killing a soldier, an emir or an imam,” it says. ―and suddenly the phrase, "The caliphate in our hearts", came to mind. Which quickly raced back to its original source, a completely screwed up bit from the Christian era of the Apostolic Fathers about being "circumcised in one's heart". And now I can't take this shit seriously again for the rest of the night ....
The Democrats and President Obama have been anti-military and anti-war for decades. Therefore, dealing with the necessities of war is not their strong suit. They plan for peace, not the needs of war. When confronted with necessity of war, in light of an anti-war philosophy, their effort will be weak. An analogy would be expecting the Republicans to fight for abortion. If the Republican were in power, and the need for abortion became very strong, so they can't ignore it, they would make an effort, but it would be bare minimum due to lack of conviction. What the Democrats don't grasp are the radical Muslims are not under PC. You can''t just say, you are a hater or bigot and expect them to cave. The Muslim men are not feminized men who cave to nagging or word games. Their culture treats women with a strong hand. What may work on a feminized western male will not work on them. They will interpret PC games as weakness and become embolden against a limp wrist enemy who is not showing himself to be a man. They respect and respond to strong masculine input. This is why leaders like Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator, could leverage respect from very diverse elements in his country. If and when Trump is elected president, he will be able to project the needed macho. There is less loss of face if they cave to a strong masculine leader, compared to a feminized man or woman. This is not personal against feminine men or woman, just that Muslim culture is centered on masculinity.
Yeah, which is why they've already elected a female to lead Pakistan, for instance, twice. Do you ever pay attention to reality?
Well, yes, of course he will. He could threaten them with having to wear fake tans, say. Or with having to invest in one of his financially dodgy real estate schemes. He's a tough negotiator, so they'll most likely end up being told "you're fired". Oh, the humiliation!
