The Johadi Logic
Lure the U.S. into
the fight that Obama will quit, as in Iraq, Libya,
and (soon) Afghanistan.
By Charles Krauthammer
NationalReview.com
ISIS video of the murders of James Foley
(left) and Steven Sotloff.
ISIS video of the murders of
James Foley (left) and Steven Sotloff.
What was the Islamic State thinking? We know it is
sophisticated in its use of modern media. But what
was the logic of propagating to the world videos of
its beheadings of two Americans (and subsequently a
Briton) — sure to inflame public opinion?
There are two possible explanations. One is that
these terrorists are more depraved and less savvy
than we think. They so glory in blood that they
could not resist making an international spectacle
of their savagery and did not quite fathom how such
a brazen, contemptuous slaughter of Americans would
radically alter public opinion and risk bringing
down upon them the furies of the U.S. Air Force.
The second theory is that they were fully aware of
the inevitable consequence of their broadcast
beheadings — and they intended the outcome. It was
an easily sprung trap to provoke America into
entering the Mesopotamian war.
Why?
Because they’re sure we will lose. Not immediately
and not militarily. They know we always win the
battles, but they are convinced that, as war drags
on, we lose heart and go home.
They count on Barack Obama’s quitting the Iraq/Syria
campaign just as he quit Iraq and Libya in 2011 and
is in the process of leaving Afghanistan now. And
this goes beyond Obama. They see a post-9/11
pattern: America experiences shock and outrage and
demands action. Then, seeing no quick resolution, it
tires and seeks out leaders who will order the
retreat. In Obama, they found the quintessential
such leader.
As for the short run, the Islamic State knows it
will be pounded from the air. But it deems that
price worth paying, given its gains in propaganda
and prestige — translated into renown and recruiting
— from these public executions.
Understanding this requires adjusting our thinking.
A common mantra is that American cruelty — Abu
Ghraib, Guantanamo, “torture,” the Iraq War itself —
is the great jihadist recruiting tool. But leaving
Iraq, closing Abu Ghraib, and prohibiting “enhanced
interrogation” has had zero effect on recruiting. In
fact, jihadi cadres from Mali to Mosul have only
swelled during Obama’s outstretched-hand presidency.
Turns out the Islamic State’s best recruiting tool
is indeed savagery — its own. Deliberate, defiant,
triumphant. The beheadings are not just a magnet for
psychopaths around the world. They are choreographed
demonstrations of its own unbounded determination
and of American helplessness. In Osama bin Laden’s
famous formulation, who is the “strong horse” now?
We tend to forget that at this stage in its career,
the Islamic State’s principal fight is intramural.
It seeks to supersede and supplant its jihadi rivals
— from al-Qaeda in Pakistan to Jabhat al-Nusra in
Syria — to emerge as champion of the one true jihad.
The strategy is simple: Draw in the world’s great
superpower, create the ultimate foil, and thus
instantly achieve supreme stature in radical Islam
as America’s nemesis.
It worked. A year ago, the world had never heard of
this group, then named ISIS (the Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria). Now it is the subject of
presidential addresses, parliamentary debates, and
international conferences. It is the new al-Qaeda,
which itself has been demoted to JV.
Indeed, so eclipsed and upstaged is al-Qaeda that
its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, scrambled to reveal
the creation of a new India/South Asia branch. It
announced itself this month with its first operation
— a comically botched attack on a Pakistani frigate
that left ten al-Qaeda fighters dead and the ship
intact.
While al-Qaeda was being humiliated, a huge Paris
conference devoted entirely to the Islamic State was
convened by Secretary of State John Kerry. Like his
other conferences, it failed. Obama’s “broad
coalition” remains a fantasy.
It’s more a coalition of the unwilling. Turkey
denied us the use of its air bases. The Sunni Arab
states are reluctant to do anything militarily
significant. And not a single country has
volunteered combat troops. Hardly a surprise, given
that Obama has repeatedly ruled that out for the
U.S. itself.
Testifying on Wednesday to the Senate, Kerry issued
a stern declaration: “ISIL must be defeated. Period.
End of story.” Not the most wisely crafted of
declarations: The punctuational emphasis carried
unfortunate echoes of Obama’s promise about
health-care plans, and the word “must” carried
similar echoes of Obama’s assertions that Bashar
al-Assad had to go.
But Kerry’s statement remains true for strategic and
even moral reasons. But especially because when the
enemy deliberately brings you into combat, it is all
the more imperative to show the world that he made a
big mistake.
— Charles
Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated
columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group