ISIS is no Taliban: Opinion

[webfact]

ISIS is no Taliban
Zahid Hussain
Dawn

(ANN) The dramatic rise of the Islamic State organisation formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its proclamation of a so-called caliphate portend a new and more brutal face of global jihadism.

The organisation may not espouse al-Qaeda’s global militant agenda; nevertheless, it is terribly wrong to compare the group with the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban.

ISIS is a phenomenon in itself with an ambition of extending its rule over the entire Muslim world.

Representing a more radical version of Sunni Islam, it seems to have already marginalised al-Qaeda at least in the Arabian peninsula. The stunning victories gained by ISIS, largely owing to its superior organisational capability, has helped the group take control of large parts of the region known as the cradle of civilisation.

Despite their fierce rivalry in the battle for Syria, ISIS and al-Qaeda are not ideologically very distinct from each other. The cadres of both militant networks are inspired by the same jihadist worldview. In fact, the group is an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

But both groups are unlike the Taliban whose support base is largely tribal and parochial.

The ISIS fighters mostly come from urban educated backgrounds. The network has also drawn a sizeable number of young Muslim jihadists from the Western countries into its ranks.

Some 3,000 foreigners form a large chunk of the group’s fighting force reflecting its global jihadist appeal.

Some analysts tend to draw a parallel between the rise of ISIS and that of the Taliban militia in Afghanistan in the 1990s. This argument cannot be more flawed. There is no similarity between the two groups at all.

For example, in his article titled ‘ISIS: the new Taliban’, published in the New York Review of Books, Ahmed Rashid argues: “In many ways, what the group is doing to Syria and Iraq resembles what the Taliban did in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the early 1990s.”

He further contends that like the Taliban, ISIS’s war so far has been “about conquering territory rather than launching an al-Qaeda-style global jihad”.

While it may be true that the Taliban did not have a global jihad agenda and were only interested in establishing a retrogressive order in Afghanistan, that is certainly not correct in the case of ISIS.

The group is truly committed to global jihad in contrast with the Afghan Taliban’s narrow local agenda. Though Mullah Omar had also declared himself ‘amirul momineen’ his ambitions have never been global.

Unlike the Taliban supreme leader’s being a village mullah, the ISIS leader has a doctorate in Islamic ideology.

In a rare public appearance last week, ISIS leader Abu Bakar al Baghdadi (who has now declared himself ‘Caliph Ibrahim’) called for global jihad ordering the Muslims to ‘obey’ him. “I am the wali (leader) who presides over you,” declared Baghdadi.

Addressing the Friday congregation at the central mosque in Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul, which was recently captured by his fighters, Baghdadi admonished the Muslims: “Do jihad in the cause of God, incite the believers and be patient in the face of this hardship.”

The changing of the group’s name is an expression of its ambitions beyond Iraq and Syria.

The purported ambition of ISIS is defined by a widely circulated online map showing the areas that the group ostensibly plans to bring under the control of the ‘caliphate’.

They include most of the Muslim countries as well as parts of Europe that were once ruled by Muslims.

With its genesis deeply rooted in the sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq, the organisation is essentially fighting an anti-Shia war.

The killing of members of rival sects and the destruction of shrines is the hallmark of the group’s ideology. Though the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban too have a strong anti-Shia bias, that has not been the ideological base of their struggle.

A major factor contributing to the stunning success of ISIS is the vacuum created in Iraq and Syria by the collapsing state authority.

The militant group has also benefited from the growing discontent among the minority Sunni community against the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.

In fact, the alliance with rebel Sunni tribes has played a critical role in the capture of northern Iraq by ISIS.

Notwithstanding its growing influence, ISIS remains a loosely connected sectarian group.

The fact is that it is not such a single-minded monolith, but a coalition of radical Sunnis, former Baathist military officers and various tribal factions discontented with the government of Nouri al-Maliki.

Interestingly, while the militant organisation wants the people living in the regions under its control to observe ultra conservative Islamic traditions, it relies hugely on a hyper modern and sophisticated social media and even well-made feature-length movies to promote its ideology, recruit fighters and intimidate rival groups.

According to some analysts, the militant group has one of the most sophisticated social media strategies of any extremist group. Its powerful propaganda machine played an extremely important role in winning the psychological war against the enemy.

All that makes ISIS distinctly different from the rustic Pakistani and Afghan Taliban movements.

The context of their respective wars also varies significantly. Although Pakistani and Afghan Taliban share the same retrogressive ideological worldview, even these two groups have some divergences.

What is common among all three groups, however, is the use of terrorism as a major weapon to achieve their objectives.

The sectarian agenda of ISIS has already triggered the process of fragmentation of Iraq, which was unthinkable a few years ago.

So the dream of uniting the Muslim world under a ‘caliphate’ is nothing more than a wild fantasy. What is most worrisome, however, is the creation of a new generation of global jihadists.

There is genuine concern that thousands among the foreign militants fighting in Iraq and Syria may trigger a new wave of terrorism when they return to their home countries.

Source: http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-62137.html


-- ANN 2014-07-09

[PiPiFFS]

In the 1970's America dropped more bombs on the country of Cambodia than any other country in history. The equivalent of 5 hiroshima bombs. This on a country it wasn't at war with and was no threat to America. It did this to destabilise the country to assist with the overthrow of its leader. His subsequent overthrow and death led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and its leader pol Pot. His subsequent reign of terror brought about the deaths of countless million innocent Cambodians.

Anyone else see a repeat of history here ?

People also seem to forget that before the West invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were the rulers of that country. As far as I can remember they never threatened another sovereign state they simply refused Americas demand to hand over a suspect and when the UN asked if they could reduce the heroin production they practically eliminated it. something the coalition seems incapable of doing.

You reap what you sow as the saying goes

[Scott]

I believe this topic is about ISIS.

I think you getting Cambodia and Laos mixed up.

[Ulysses G.]

People also seem to forget that before the West invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were the rulers of that country. As far as I can remember they never threatened another sovereign state they simply refused Americas demand to hand over a suspect

The Taliban allowed al Queda to run camps to train terrorists in Afghanistan and they harbored them after 9/11. We should have skipped the "nation building" part, but they pretty much deserved what they got.

[lostsoul49]

People also seem to forget that before the West invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were the rulers of that country. As far as I can remember they never threatened another sovereign state they simply refused Americas demand to hand over a suspect

The Taliban allowed al Queda to run camps to train terrorists in Afghanistan and they harbored them after 9/11. We should have skipped the "nation building" part, but they pretty much deserved what they got.

The Taliban didn't even exist until the CIA arrived there and funded its birth to radicalise moderate Afghans to fight the Russians.

The CIA's main mission was to open up Taliban schools (Taliban = Scholar) to bastardise and misinterpret the quoran into its new deadly form to manipulate the minds of people who would then take up arms in the name of Allah and Muhammed. As usual, the US foreign policy is to blame for what has now morphed into something uncontrollable and the entire world is now in danger.

I am not American bashing... I have no problem with American citizens. But the US government are stupid, stupid and very dangerous people indeed.

You indeed reap what you sow.

[Ulysses G.]

The US didn't create the Taliban. That is incorrect. US Aid to Afghan fighters ended in 1992. The Taliban was created by Pakistani Intelligence in 1994. Blame them.

[Jizzlam]

ISIS -TALIBAN - AL QAEDA - BOKO HAREM... and any other Muslime Fanatical organizations... Same same. NOT different.

They are all out to suppress freedom and deny peoples rights to a free thinking society.

They are all sadistic killers the lot of them.

If it acts like a Pig, Eats like a Pig and Smells like a Pig then logic dictates it must be a Pig.

[rgs2001uk]

I believe this topic is about ISIS.

I think you getting Cambodia and Laos mixed up.

I may be wrong I think he is referring to Nixons carpet bombing of Cambodia, sometimes referred to as the secret war.

Everything else in the post is correct with the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Sorry to digress.

[Diablo Bob]

In the 1970's America dropped more bombs on the country of Cambodia than any other country in history. The equivalent of 5 hiroshima bombs. This on a country it wasn't at war with and was no threat to America. It did this to destabilise the country to assist with the overthrow of its leader. His subsequent overthrow and death led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and its leader pol Pot. His subsequent reign of terror brought about the deaths of countless million innocent Cambodians.

Anyone else see a repeat of history here ?

People also seem to forget that before the West invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were the rulers of that country. As far as I can remember they never threatened another sovereign state they simply refused Americas demand to hand over a suspect and when the UN asked if they could reduce the heroin production they practically eliminated it. something the coalition seems incapable of doing.

You reap what you sow as the saying goes

I think the bombs you are refering to is The Plain of Jars, Laos.

The Cambodia conflict during the Vietnam war era is quite confusing with The USA, USSR and China all supporting different players in the game. The Chinese supported the Khmer Rouge, they won Phase I...... Phase II, the USSR won, they supported North Vietnam, by this time just Vietnam when they kicked out the Khmer Rouge. It's interesting to note that the Khmer Rouge eradicated the North Vietnames insurgents while coming to power (China vs. USSR). In responce to the Vietnames invasion of Cambodia in 1978, China tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, but met an enemy with 40+ years of war experience, it went badly for the Chinese.

None of the leaders (past/present) were killed in the conflict, Prince Sihanouk spent his exhile in North Korea supprting the Khmer Rouge, he died in 2012. Lon Nol, who overthrew the Prince died in 1985 in California.

It is speculated that the rise of the Khmer Rouge had more to do with Prince Sihanouk's support than the ideology of Pol Pot.

[bigbamboo]

I actually feel sorry for any kid being born a muslim. At least if you're a catholic you can run away from the circus.

[gazzasore]

People read or listen to "The Confession of an Economic Hitman"

This really explains why the world is the way it is right now

[Scott]

Thanks for the clarification on the SE Asian situation, now back to ISIS.

[OmarZaidMD]

Great Article. Thanks. They are legitimate murderers and terroists on a quest for booty and booty (:--)) . . . their end is ignominy.

[stander]

Muslims kill Jews; blame Jews? Muslims kill Hindus; blame Hindus? Muslims kill Christians; blame Christians? Muslims kill Muslims; blame US?

[sanuk711]

We should have skipped the "nation building" part, but they pretty much deserved what they got---Ulysses G

What they (got) will get is a victory over the western coalition --I do not think there is any military person of note that doubts that.

What the W-Coalition got was a lot of young kids returned in Body bags, or maimed & disillusioned after 10 years.

What the world got ,was a Terrorists country -Pakistan-brought back in from the cold by America--- funded by American taxpayers, at one point to the sum of 12 billion-$us a month, to help rebuild its infrastructure, place the country back on the world stage after being embargoed for selling Nuclear technology to Nth Korea (& anyone else who would pay) -- teach its secret police the latest techniques so they can use them to eliminate any opposition to the then military rule, while leaving untouched the terrorist schools emanating from there & opening all around the world ......... Oh yes.... & how to hide your benefactors worse enemy & keep him safe for 10 years...

Not quite what one would call a great deal.....................

[Acharn]

People also seem to forget that before the West invaded Afghanistan the Taliban were the rulers of that country. As far as I can remember they never threatened another sovereign state they simply refused Americas demand to hand over a suspect

The Taliban allowed al Queda to run camps to train terrorists in Afghanistan and they harbored them after 9/11. We should have skipped the "nation building" part, but they pretty much deserved what they got.

Don't quite get your basis for saying that, but a lot of Americans aren't very rational about the aftermath of 9/11. The Taliban had nothing to do with it's planning. In fact the planning was mostly done in Germany. Why didn't we attack Germany for "harboring" al Qaeda? 15 of the 18 attackers were Saudi. Why didn't we attack Saudi for their role? Incidentally, they were, and still are, the main source of funds for al Qaeda. Well, water over the dam. ISIS is only marginally "an offshoot" of al Qaeda. It is the descendant of "al Qaeda in Iraq," the group started by Wossisname Zarkawi to bring foreign jihadists to Iraq to fight against the crusaders. He was not a member of al qaeda, although he wanted to be. After he was killed they had hard times, especially after their hard line alienated many Sunnis in Iraq. The article is correct that the coalition in the ISIS-held parts of Iraq, and possibly Syria, are an amalgam of Ba'athists, former Hussein Army officers, and Sunni Muslims who feel Maliki is a threat to their future existence, but ISIS as an organization has been denounced by al Qaeda (back in March) for their extreme ideology and brutality.

[Ulysses G.]

In fact the planning was mostly done in Germany. Why didn't we attack Germany for "harboring" al Qaeda?

Because Germany did not know what they were up to, nor did they harbor Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the al Queda leadership after the attack. The Taliban DID.

[Naam]

The US didn't create the Taliban. That is incorrect. US Aid to Afghan fighters ended in 1992. The Taliban was created by Pakistani Intelligence in 1994. Blame them.

[Ulysses G.]

Posting a smiley, with no contradicting information, to refute well known facts, is SO convincing.