ISIS

I finally found something to inspire me to start blogging again, and no, it's not the Egyptian goddess.  I'm inspired because, in a lot of ways, I support what ISIS is, or at least originally was, trying to do, I just don't like some aspects of it.

Here is what I like:

At the end of the Iraq war, I thought the best course of action was to split Iraq up into three parts:  Give the Sunni part to Syria, give the Kurdish apart to Turkey, and trade the Shia part to Iran in exchange for their Kurdish region, which would then go to Turkey along with the Iraqi Kurdish region.  I think it's very hard for a government in such a sectarian region to truly represent all three ethnic groups, and all three ethnic groups have counterparts in these other countries, so I thought it made sense to split them up.  Also, the current national borders are simply left over from when the British pulled out of the area (I'm not too sure of the history here), and these borders were not made with any consideration for the borders of the various ethnic groups.  I thought re-drawing new borders along existing ethnic lines made a lot of sense.

One of ISIS's original goals was to create a Caliphate that included the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria.  It seemed like what they wanted was only what should have been created in the first place.  Also, they wanted this for the legitimate reason that the Syrian and Iraqi governments were not fairly satisfying the needs of their Sunni populations.  If those governments can't represent all of their people fairly, then they deserve to be overthrown.  Of course, since then ISIS's ego has gone a little out of control, and they now also want to take over the entire Sunni world.  I don't think they have a legitimate claim here because many of these countries are being well enough run.  Even if one can argue that a single Sunni Caliphate makes sense, it should only happen for areas whose populations revolt against their government, and then decide to join.  It should happen through internal revolution, not through conquest.  This is a case of "Don't fix what ain't broke."

ISIS has shown that it's strong enough to take these lands (Syria and Iraq), and it has shown that it can provide the services that people need (such as schools, police, trash pick-up, etc.), and I think that gives it more legitimacy than a puppet government that's kept in power only by the backing of the U.S. or some other outside entity.

Here is what I don't like:

Kidnapping and killing journalists!  There are few things that all Americans stand behind, but Freedom of Speech is probably our most sacred credo.  To me, an atheist, it is the closest thing to a religious principle that I have.  I personally think that when ISIS killed the first American journalist, Obama should have turned to his Secretary of Defense and said "They're all yours, give 'em hell!"  Unless ISIS apologizes for killing our journalists, frees any journalists that it is currently holding, promises to never kidnap and kill journalists again, and promises to respect their right to impartially gather and report on what's going on in the world, then we should wipe their asses from the face of this earth.  I like what they're doing above, and I think they provide a real opportunity for some stabilization in the area, but killing our journalists is a deal breaker.  There is no negotiation on this.

Genocide!  A lot of people might consider this more important than the killing of journalists, after all, a greater number of people are involved, but I'm listing it second for two reasons.  First, without our journalists, we might not even know about the genocide, and ISIS might have succeeded in wiping out the Yazidis.  Second, just judging by the news, I think Americans responded more strongly to the killings of the journalists than we did to the Yazidis; maybe in part because the journalists are Americans, but I think also because we admire the journalists for willingly putting themselves in harm's way in order to expose the injustices that go on in the world.  Nonetheless, Freedom of Religion is right up there with Freedom of Speech in terms of being a sacred credo among Americans.  We could never tolerate a group that commits genocide against minority populations that are hurting no one.

There are other issues that are important to large groups of Americans, such as Women's rights, and the potential threat to Israel that a united Sunni Caliphate might pose, but I'm not sure they would rise to the level of inciting us to war, and events are bearing me out on this.  We didn't start bombing ISIS until they started attacking the Yazidis, and then it was only to protect the Yazidis.  We didn't start an all-out air campaign until they killed our journalists.

Why should ISIS care what Americans think?  Because we are the only country in the world with both the power and the inclination to stop ISIS (China and Russia have the power, but I doubt they have the inclination).  For ISIS to be successful, they need to stay just shy of doing anything that would cause us to physically oppose them.  Let us whine and rant all we want in the media, they can still succeed in their goals, but if they incite us to war, then they lose.

I would like to see ISIS succeed, within the parameters I've outlined above.  I think a people have a right to work together as a single entity to become as strong as they can, and I think having a strong leader rise up from among them with the strength, courage, and good judgement to unite his people is a good way for this to happen.  Either way, I will respect Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for what he has been able to accomplish, I will simply oppose him because I don't like the world that he is trying to create.