How the Muslim World Benefits from ISIS

aa140625-iraq-isis-mosul-street-445a_82f23afee3a82a104ef51a50474e30c6However the US campaign against ISIS goes, the beneficiaries will be its Sunni Muslim allies who are also doubling as our allies. While on the surface ISIS appears to have cut all ties, threatening even former allies like Turkey and Qatar, underneath the surface the pragmatic connections remain as strong as ever.

Terrorism is the fire of the Muslim world. Everyone plays with it and everyone gets burned. The trick is burning someone else with it first.

Americans still think of the relationship between terrorist groups and countries as servant and master. However it’s often more like feeding a rabid dog and then luring it into your neighbor’s yard. It’s less about direct control of a terrorist group and more about maneuvering it to reshape the political and military environment that your enemies and allies operate in.

That’s why Al Qaeda and Iran, religious enemies, could still occasionally cooperate.

The current campaign against ISIS is a typical example. By empowering ISIS, the Sunni Muslim oil states dragged the United States into an alliance with the bands of Islamic Jihadists commonly known as the Free Syrian Army. When the West balked at intervention even after reports of WMD use, the smart money went to ISIS. By turning Al Qaeda into a major regional threat, the United States would be dragged into the conflict and then forced to make common cause with the Free Syrian Army anyway.

When that still didn’t happen on schedule, mass murder and rape by ISIS did the trick. Now the Kurds have been forced out of their neutral position and into an alignment with the Sunni rebels. Western countries have gotten deeper into an alliance with the Free Syrian Army which will ultimately force them into a NATO intervention in Syria to protect the FSA. That was always the endgame. ISIS was the means.

The ISIS gamble was a dangerous one, especially under Obama, but now it’s beginning to pay off.

Islamic terrorism benefits Muslims directly and indirectly. The direct benefits are obvious. The indirect benefits are more subtle. Whether it’s ISIS and the FSA, Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, the “extremist” mosques that openly preach death and the “moderate” mosques that dress it up a little, Islamic violence benefits both sides in the game of “Good Caliph” and “Bad Caliph”.

Islamic “extremism” creates a market for “moderates”. The more bombs go off, the more the affected countries scramble to ally with cooler heads who claim to be able to defuse the anger of the radicals.

It’s a familiar game.

Jihadists set off bombs in Boston and the state partners with local mosques. The Taliban kill girls and the United States pumps more money into Pakistan. ISIS massacres non-Muslims and we ally with the FSA.

The Muslim world needs “extremists” to blow off dangerous steam and to achieve their goals indirectly. Each new extreme may hurt Muslims, but it also makes Westerners more dependent on them while turning yesterday’s unacceptable groups into the new moderates. When we look past the individual groups to the larger objectives of Islamization, we can see that each group in its own way helps put another piece of the puzzle into place. One group may do so through violence, while another promises to counter radical extremists, but all are working to secure the same ultimate totalitarian concessions.

Muslims object to the idea that each of them should be viewed as a ticking time bomb and yet they have benefited enormously from such a perception. PLO terrorism turned Western foreign policy into a tool for pursuing Muslim grievances against Israel. Al Qaeda turned Muslims from an obscure minority into a civil rights priority. ISIS combines both, forcing the West to accommodate Sunni territorial demands in Iraq and Syria through armed intervention while spreading paranoia about ISIS recruitment in the West.

When the current conflict with ISIS ends, it is likely that the Shiites will have been broken in Syria and weakened in Iraq, that Kurdish statehood will once again be a fantasy and that the position of Sunni Muslims in both countries will be stronger than ever after having profited from seizing the properties of Christians and Yazidi who were ethnically cleansed by ISIS. Even if ISIS loses, many of its goals will have been met because they’re also the goals of our Muslim allies in the coalition against ISIS.

We’re not even allying with Stalin to beat Hitler. We’re allying with one wing of the Nazi Party to beat another wing of the Nazi Party. And whichever wing wins, the Nazi agenda still wins.

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t deal with ISIS. Like its Al Qaeda parent, it does represent a threat to us. But we also need to recognize that the best way to fight it is without the entangling alliances and strategic linkages that reward its backers. The surest way to perpetuate ISIS is to show its backers that they can can drag us into a war on their behalf by arming and funding Islamic terrorists for us to fight.

Too many politicians have bought into the myth that we can’t beat ISIS without allying with “moderates” in Syria despite the fact that even this administration, which can find moderates in Gitmo, couldn’t originally find any that it could safely arm. Our allies against ISIS are also the allies of ISIS.  We are not using them to beat ISIS. They are using us to seize Iraq and Syria.

When we accept the linkage between beating ISIS and helping the FSA, we reward the backers of ISIS. In the future when the Sunni oil states want to drag the US into a war, all they have to do is arm and fund ISIS or another group very much like it. And if we don’t come running when the bell rings, then they’ll have to make it an even bigger threat until it becomes too big for even a Democrat to ignore.

That’s exactly what happened with ISIS.

The answer doesn’t lie in ignoring Al Qaeda or in becoming a puppet of its backers. Instead we have to be aware of the larger political agendas involved. And those political agendas cannot be talked about.

When Biden wandered around the edges of the truth, he was swiftly told to apologize to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE. The same administration that can blame Israel for ISIS recruitment can’t even admit the fact that its Sunni allies were the ones who provided the money, weapons and manpower for ISIS. And if it can’t admit that, then it certainly can’t admit that it wasn’t a mistake, but a calculated plan.

The weakest and wealthiest Muslim countries compensate for their weakness by turning their dependency on us into our dependency on them. They need Al Qaeda and ISIS to make Western countries dependent on them. Muslims in the West similarly compensate for their weakness and dependency by exploiting the fear of Islamic terrorism to increase their influence and political power.

Islamic terrorism won’t end with airstrikes. It will end when we break this cycle of dependency by recognizing that what really feeds terrorism isn’t oppression or injustice, but Muslim political cynicism.

The backers of ISIS are also our allies against ISIS. Sunni Arab Muslims have aided in the genocide of non-Muslims to force us to back their territorial claims which include the ethnic cleansing of the same people we are fighting to protect. To fight ISIS we have made a deal with the devil to carry out the ISIS agenda.

That is the same thing that has happened each time we allowed ourselves to be led into the trap of allying with the “moderates” to defeat the “extremists.” It’s a road that leads to trying to bring democracy through Islamism and allying with Jihadists to fight Jihadists.

We can’t defeat ISIS by becoming ISIS.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Great insight, Daniel. Your breakdown revealed a dialectical process that the Muslims use to advance Islam by using extreme evil to make their everyday evil appear acceptable. It is the same thing the Left does when they push for something extreme, like socialized healthcare, knowing they won’t get it right away, but also knowing they will get incremental compromises (syntheses) that pave the way for a future of socialized medicine. Now the Muslims have figured out a way, with Obama’s loyal help, to use the Crusaders to defeat their enemies* and help them re-establish their caliphate. Richard the Lionheart is rolling in his grave.

    The West is playing right into this dialectical process, primarily because it is already morally paralyzed by political correctness. We are living in a perfect storm of evil.

    *since we are one of their enemies, we are helping them defeat us.

    • camp7

      Especially when you add the unstable economy, the ebola pandemic and all the other social/racial unrest. Takes a darn good boat to ride that storm:

      “The Helm”
      Through gale and wave the boat has plowed,

      sick and wrought they be.

      The rudder of the Captain’s crowd
      
steers true to course of he.
      

Bow points south to gloomy shoals,

      on rock meets wood with pain.

      Pierce of cries from desperate souls

      rings fathoms deep in vain.


      Who will wreck with strength of heart,

      who will hold to shore.

      Those will build another ship

      that takes us sail once more.

      • JonathanBrayufa

        my Aunty Scarlett just got a nearly new green Mercedes C-Class Sedan by working parttime off of a pc. why not try here…..>> -> CHECK IT OUT HERE! <-

    • The March Hare

      Makes the bow to King Abdullah more significant.

      • truebearing

        Oh, but you must have poor eyesight. You saw it all wrong. He didn’t bow and scrape before the Saudi King…according to Obama’s you-can’t-trust-your-senses-but-you-can-trust-me Wormtongues.

        Ebolabama won’t even go after ISIS in a determined way. He reluctantly bombs Muslims only when there is a political urgency.

        • The March Hare

          Boy, it all fits together, doesn’t it?

  • camp7

    Precisely. The US should be more concerned with defensive measures. Arming and supporting abstract factions of Islam is not only self-defeating but ludicrous when considering the end game of tribal jihad-sharia goals.

    An astute US republic should realize the importance of backing a civil democratic government to resist the conquest of savage ideology within that region. Pretty much narrows down to pragmatically aiding Israel exclusively. A no-brainer except for the elite, political, ruling vanguard, confused with a fantasy of totalitarian utopia, racial preference and selfish intent.

    Doesn’t work, won’t work, which leaves us to address the complexity of those who are in control are out of control. Boils down to civilization (defined by morals and values), using the tools at hand, to defeat the enemy of truth and goodness – whatever the forum. This is a global war of morality unprecedented since the Lucifer rebellion. This is a test of spiritual evolution. There will be winners and losers.

    • truebearing

      The ultimate misanthropist has his most loyal disciple running our country, ensuring dark times ahead.

  • BlackCoffee07

    Watch “Covert Origins of ISIS” on YouTube. Stormcloudsgathering does a great job laying out how and why US policies helped to create ISIS, just as they helped to create Al-Qaeda (or is the latter actually Al-CIA-DA?).

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    No argument with any of the points made in this piece but it could use a broader focus because the real problem as far as the U.S. and the free world is concerned sits in the White House with its own agenda of developing a Caliphate run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Until the White House and State Department is thoroughly cleansed of traitors, fifth columnists, Marxists, racists and Islamists and an elimination of all the operators they have put into other government agencies, America is under threat.

    • Moa

      Yep, our bureaucracies must be purged of all people working to undermine our countries. It doesn’t matter who you elect if the bureaucracy has its own agenda,

      • Dan Knight

        It would be a great idea to term limit the bureaucrats …

  • cree

    I keep in mind Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. IS takeover of Iraq’s northern oil production. Baghdad is under siege. Saudi Arabia is nervous. World economies dependent on Persian Oil. Could that be an end game of the Caliphate? Who joins whose side? More unity of the Muslim factions. Blackmail without a nuclear weapon. Obama coalition too weak to effectively counter. Only one carrier force protecting the P gulf; no backups close. Those ships susceptible to anti-ship missiles. Our other bases close, enough? Thinking the maybes are not good. Not sure how to read the jihad leaves beyond Daniel’s insight.

  • mtnhikerdude

    ISIS’ chief America destroyer resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C .

  • Lynn

    We can defeat ISIS by bombing them into oblivion. I vote for that alternative!!

  • Sara

    Our Traitor in Chief first dismissed ISIS as a JV team, then had no strategy against ISIS, then had to put together an entire coalition so that he can finally give ISIS a few booboos. The strongest army on earth doesn’t need a coalition to fight against a vagrant militia, it can singlehandedly pound it into dust. Obama has aided ISIS more than anyone else through his inaction, not to mention through arming them; he is ISIS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    I’m surprised that this article was written without once mentioning natural gas—which is largely why the Islamic State exists in the first place—to topple Assad so that a natural gas pipeline can be built through Syria to Turkey, undermining Russia in the process.

    • Pete

      (1) You could build a pipeline for Baghdad to Mosul and on into Turkey without going through Syria.

      (2) A simpler explanation is that the Muslim Brotherhood tried overthrow Assad regime before and was bound to try again.

      (a) Bashar Assad’s mettle was untried unlike his father Hafez. At one time I read he was under arrest in his mountain top retreat. the theory being that if he left for exile, the government would fall apart and the Alawites would be massacred. So it was int the interest of the oligarchy and the Alwawites that they insist that he remain President.

      (b) The Arab Spring in Egypt and elsewhere gave people hope that demonstrations and such might work. Demonstration started in 2012 , a year after those in Egypt.

      (3) Qatar and to some extent others are just off the chain. All that money makes them feel their oats. So they are going to cause trouble with or without a gas line. A gas line is just icing on the cake. Qatar loaned or gave the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt $4 billion to keep Egypt from hitting bottom n foreign exchange reserves. The “loan” to Egypt was not a wise economic investment. It was for prestige, political support etc. Have they been paid back? Not everything Qatar does is related to making money. Wars are not always fought for money or land. Sometimes they are fought for honor. The Peloponnesian Wars were fought over honor (Timé) according to some historians. Might those sheiks in Qatar have overweening pride?

      1982 Hama Massacre

      “The Hama massacre occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian Arab Army and the Defense Companies, under the orders of the country’s then-president, Hafez al-Assad, besieged the town of Hama for <27 days in order to quell an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Assad’s government. The massacre, carried out by the Syrian Army under commanding General Rifaat al-Assad, effectively ended the campaign begun in 1976 by Sunni Muslim groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, against the government.”

      “The Arab Spring is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and surroundings. While the wave of initial revolutions and protests had expired by mid-2012, some refer to the ongoing large-scale conflicts in Middle East and North Africa as a continuation of the Arab Spring, while others refer to aftermath of revolutions and civil wars post mid-2012 as the Arab Winter.”

      Iran Building Gas Pipeline To Syria

      Qatar-Turkey pipeline

      It’s Not Just the Oil. The Middle East War and the Conquest of Natural Gas Reserves

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    We keep fighting the proxies … and play whac-a-mole.

  • Pete

    “Americans still think of the relationship between terrorist groups and countries as servant and master. However it’s often more like feeding a rabid dog and then luring it into your neighbor’s yard. It’s less about direct control of a terrorist group and more about maneuvering it to reshape the political and military environment that your enemies and allies operate in.

    That’s why Al Qaeda and Iran, religious enemies, could still occasionally cooperate.”

    Good analysis and analogy. It fits with someone elses’ observation someone else made that Iran funded the chaos by supplying Sunni and shiite groups during the Iraq war because they thought they could navigate the chaos better than the U.S.

    To this day so many people simply say “Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shia, so they could not possibly cooperate.” This despite the treasury department and other government agencies detailing point by point the cooperation. Debating some people on this issue is like talking to a brick wall.

  • Tzipporah

    We should not have politician who are just good at getting votes, fund raising and giving speeches making Military decisions. You cannot win a war without good Intelligence, Military leaders and war plans. The Muslim world has an advantage: they like killing and don’t care about life. Their whole game plan to take over the world through deception is powerful. As long as our leaders believe that Islam is a religion of Peace we are lost. We are aligned with the axis of evil to help spread evil.

  • http://davidhdennis.com/ David H Dennis

    So what would your policy be, then?

    As far as I can tell, we should keep arming the Israelis and Kurds, and let all the other sides kill each other. That seems to be what they want, it doesn’t seem far from what they deserve, and of course it saves us huge amounts of American lives and resources.

    D