A Dead Caliph vs. the Hydra of Jihad

Abu-Bakr-al-BaghdadiIs Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled “caliph” of the Islamic State, injured or dead, as some in the media are eagerly speculating?

Better question: does it really matter?

For almost a decade now, every time an Islamic jihadi leader is killed, the Western mainstream media exult, portraying the death as a major blow to the jihad.  And, for almost a decade now, I have responded by posting an article that I first wrote in 2006 for Victor Davis Hanson’s website, Private Papers.

Although I changed the names of the jihadi leaders killed to suit the occasion—first Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi, then Abu Laith al-Libi, then Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Misri, and finally Osama bin Laden—my conclusion has remained the same:

The West’s plight vis-à-vis radical Islam is therefore akin to Hercules’ epic encounter with the multi-headed Hydra-monster.  Every time the mythical strongman lopped off one of the monster’s heads, two new ones grew in its place.  To slay the beast once and for all, Hercules learned to cauterize the stumps with fire, thereby preventing any more heads from sprouting out.

Similarly while the West continues to lop off monster heads like figurehead Zarqawi [or bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, etc.] it is imperative to treat the malady — radical Islam—in order to ultimately prevail.  Victory can only come when the violent ideologies of radical Islam are cauterized with fire.

But alas, the Hydra-monster is myth, while radical Islam is stark reality.

Eight years later, this “stark reality” has manifested itself into a head-chopping, infidel-crucifying, mass-murdering, female-enslaving Islamic State.

And yet, in the previous years, proclamations of “victory” were habitually made by media and politicians whenever a top jihadi was killed.

Recall all the exultation that took place in 2006 after al-Zarqawi—the forefather of the Islamic State, or “Al-Qaeda Second Generation”—was killed.   Then, almost every major politician, including President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, gave some sort of victory speech.  The New York Times called his death a “major watershed in the war.”

Similarly, in 2008, after Abu Laith al-Libi was killed, Congressman Peter Hoekstra issued a statement saying that his death “clearly will have an impact on the radical jihadist movement.”

More myopic triumphalism was in the air after Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Masri were killed in 2010 during a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation.  Then, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden said the “deaths are potentially devastating blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq [the original name of the Islamic State],” adding “This operation is evidence in my view, that the future of Iraq will not be shaped by those who would seek to destroy that country”—an assertion that has now proven woefully wrong.

Similarly, U.S. commander Gen. Raymond Odierno asserted that “The death of these terrorists is potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency,” adding that it would be “very difficult” for the al Qaeda network to replace the two men.

And who could forget all the media triumphalism, if not hysteria, surrounding the 2011 death of Osama bin Laden?  Then, CNN security analyst Peter Bergen declared that “Killing bin Laden is the end of the war on terror. We can just sort of announce that right now.” Insisting that the “iconic nature of bin Laden’s persona” cannot be replaced, Bergen further suggested that “It’s time to move on.”

Another CNN analyst, Fareed Zakaria, assured us that “this is a huge, devastating blow to al-Qaeda, which had already been crippled by the Arab Spring. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is the end of al-Qaeda in any meaningful sense of the word.”

In retrospect, surely all these assertions and assurances have proven to be immensely puerile—even for mainstream media “analysts.”

To recap, for years, U.S. leadership and its media mouthpiece so misled Americans about the status of al-Qaeda (code name for the amorphous jihad)—thus directly contributing to the rise of the Islamic State: we were repeatedly told that al-Qaeda was suffering “devastating blows”; that the killing of individual jihadis were “major watersheds in the war”; that “the end of the war on terror” occurred in 2011, when bin Laden died (“it’s time to move on,” counseled Peter Bergen); and “that the future of Iraq will not be shaped by those who would seek to destroy that country,” according to Biden.

Yet, lo and behold: an Islamic State, a caliphate engaged in the worst atrocities of the 21st century, has been born—despite the deaths of Zarqawi, bin Laden, et. al.

When it comes to the significance of the killing of this or that jihadi leader, the best prediction I have ever read—a prediction that has proven too true—comes not from U.S. politicians, “experts,” or media.  It comes from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Asked in a 2005 interview about the status of bin Laden and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, he confidently replied:

Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.182, emphasis added).

And there it is: jihad “transcends time” and is not personified by this or that leader—something our myopic leaders and experts, who apparently can’t see beyond their noses, will never comprehend (and how can they, when Barack Obama has banned knowledge of Islam from U.S. intelligence?).

Jihadi leaders, ideologues, emirs, sultans, caliphs, even the prophet of Islam himself, have come and gone for nearly 1,400 years—but the jihad rages on.  It’s time Western leaders began to respond to the jihad and not just its individual practitioners.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • Demopublicrat

    This country is on life support, muslims hiding in the bushes aren’t even on the radar screen when it comes to the actual problems.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’re so right, Raymond. Keep up the great work.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    I think of these people akin to shark’s teeth: When one bites the dust, there’s always another that pops up in place. We’ll be fighting these cretins for ever. Their influence becomes greater in part as the world becomes more and more politically correct.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    The criticism is valid but where is the specific recommendation? In reality it all comes back to practicality. Can the free world launch a modern crusade? This time with nuclear weapons? It could but won’t. So it is a matter of eliminating as many leaders as possible and developing a global apartheid. No more immigration. No more mosques built in the new world before Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran invite churches and synagogues to be built in their countries. Arrest and incarceration for mullahs who preach hate in the existing mosques and a shutting down of these mosques if there are repeat offenses. An outlawing of the Koran in the free world on the basis of its contravention of existing laws of our lands. Oh, yes, and first of all, impeachment of Obama.

    • cree

      The recommendations I see for the current state of affairs, the jihad ignorant are far from accepting (essential profiling). They are drastic as in the recommendations you list with that of our duped leadership and all out war as in major or a WW3. What else will stop it? Even with a defeat, at least spiritually, their creed will not let it give up Mohammed’s goal. 1979 was a relapse of the disease.

    • The March Hare

      “The criticism is valid but where is the specific recommendation?”

      Must you have a plan before you are allowed to point out the problem? Identifying the problem is a huge part of the solution. Making a good explanation of the situation is a great contribution toward getting others started on the next step.

    • TienBing

      “So it is a matter of…No more mosques built in the new world…Arrest and incarceration for mullahs… outlawing of the Koran…” etc.

      You are going to give apoplexy to a lot of Episcopalians.

    • commandergreen

      Unless there a military coup where we wrangle a few nukes free and nuke the middle east.

  • Atikva

    Of course killing some of the jihad leaders here and there is not going to stop the war. The muslims may have trumpeted their declaration of war on the West on multiple occasions, but the West has yet to acknowledge the fact. So how could we win a war when we haven’t admitted that we are at war?

    Nevertheless, every death of these jihadis ghouls is good news, if only because justice has been done. The air feels a little less noxious for a while each time one of them descends into Hades to collect his reward.

  • Del_Varner

    Perhaps, we are cutting off the wrong heads. It seems that who we should cauterize are the heads of the oil rich gulf states, or should I say any of the oil rich sheiks who fund the salafest/wahabi imams.

    • Ammianus

      You are correct. The only time jihad (Islam) has been quiescent is when it was economically and politically inhibited. The relative peace from 1600 to the 1900s owed to the advance of the West through the scientific and industrial revolutions while the Islamic world stagnated. Oil money has revitalized the Islamic world’s ability to re-engage active jihad by buying western technology. To combat this, robust western controlled energy production in all areas is a step in the right direction. A clear eyed view of Islam’s true expansionist nature by western political leaders with the nerve to do something about the immediate threat is another. Unfortunately, I don’t think the cauterization of the funders of this new jihad is going to happen anytime soon, but it is something to work for.

      • Texas Patriot

        Exactly correct. Both political parties are sodden with Middle Eastern lil money, and corrupt beyond any hope of recovery. What we all need to do is get behind a Bush-Cruz candidacy for 2016.

        • madge hirsch

          I thought the Bush family were bought and paid for by the Saudis.

          • Texas Patriot

            I think it’s fair to say that is probably more true than not, at least in the past, and about George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. I’m not sure it’s true at all about Jeb Bush, and in light of the recent developments in the Middle East, I’m not sure it is true about either one of the older Bushes anymore, either. Jeb is a really nice guy who is really smart, and he is probably a lot more electable than any of the other known Republican candidates today. Under these circumstances, I think it would be wise for all of us to investigate and scrutinize Jeb Bush quite a bit more carefully before reaching any final conclusions about that issue.

  • Harry_the_Horrible

    There is no significance to killing a specific Jihadi, no matter what his leadership position.

    Any sane military type knows that there is a thing called “chain of command.” It was developed expressly so that killing the leader doesn’t stop rest of the unit from functioning.

    Only morons who get their strategy from TV and film, or narcissists who think the world ends with them, think that killing a specific individual will do more than slightly perturb the enemy. Killing Ming the Merciless does NOT bring down his empire – it just devolves leadership to the next guy in the chain of command – who might be smarter and less emotionally involved and, thus, more dangerous.

    If you want to destroy an enemy, you need to cut him off from the resources necessary for his resistance and survival. Want to take out the Plains Indians? Wipe out the buffalo. Want to destroy the Nazis? Cut them off from oil and destroy the rail systems. Want to defeat the Japs? Sink all their merchant shipping (we were a lot better at un-restricted submarine warfare than the Germans…).

    When ISIS can’t get ammo, or fuel, or food, or pay its troops, then the good guys will start winning. Until then the promise of pay, loot, and slaves will keep their recruiting up. Achieving these things will be REALLY hard on the locals, though.

  • SoCalMike

    So does Obama loathe the West, the US and Israel and love Islamic Jihad like he said in the book he didn’t write where he stated he would side with the Muslim world if things ever went sideways between the West and the Islamic world when he said he would side with the Muslim world?
    Or does he just love the enemies of the West the same way far too many did during the Cold War?
    I remember when the West won and the wall fell, it was like the Left in the US and Europe were homeless.
    They were beyond remorseful. They were homeless…until the modern Environmental Movement was formed in the US.
    That was their rebirth and renaissance.
    And here we are with them today in control of our schools, media, law enforcement and foreign policy not to mention domestic economic policy.
    The inmates run the asylum.

  • dlbrand

    Indeed.

    Excellent article, on all points stated.

  • TienBing

    Mr. Ibrahim’s points would seem to be obvious to all but the dullest observer – yet he must give the same warning every time a jihadi is killed – to no apparent avail. Are our “leaders” really that obtuse or is there something else afoot? I suspect the answer is yes on both counts. Their elitist self absorption blinds them to all but their own BS thus making them much dumber than the peons they look down on.