Were they not addicted to barbarism and conquest, I personally would have no objection to letting the Islamic State rule the parts of Syria and Iraq it now occupies. IS could show those countries a thing or two about governing. At Abu Dhabi’s the National, Maryam Karouny reports:
In the cities and towns across north-east Syria, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has insinuated itself into nearly every aspect of daily life.
The group known for its beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions provides electricity and water, pays salaries, controls traffic, and runs nearly everything from bakeries and banks to schools, courts and mosques.
While its merciless battlefield tactics and its imposition of its austere vision of Islamic law have won the group headlines, residents say much of its power lies in its efficient and often deeply pragmatic ability to govern.
Syria’s eastern province of Raqqa provides the best illustration of their methods. Members hold up the province as an example of life under the Islamic “caliphate” they hope will one day stretch from China to Europe.
In the provincial capital, a dust-blown city that was home to about a quarter of a million people before Syria’s three-year-old war began, the group leaves almost no institution or public service outside of its control.
“Let us be honest, they are doing massive institutional work. It is impressive,” one activist from Raqqa who now lives in a border town in Turkey said.
Still, the Islamic State’s cruelty and acquisitiveness is reminiscent of the likes of less-than-illustrious forerunners from Genghis Khan to ― Godwin’s Law alert ― Adolph Hitler. One way or another, no matter the extent to which the West and especially the United States has enabled its success, the Islamic State must be stopped and rolled back. In the New York Times, Helene Cooper writes:
President Obama escalated the American response to the marauding Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Friday, recruiting at least nine allies to help crush the organization and offering the outlines of a coordinated military strategy that echoes the war on terror developed by his predecessor, George W. Bush, more than a decade ago.
… Mr. Obama spoke after aides had unveiled what Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the “core coalition” to fight the ISIS militants, the outcome of a hastily organized meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit talks. Diplomats and defense officials from the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark huddled to devise a two-pronged strategy: strengthening allies on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while bombing Sunni militants from the air.
… For Mr. Obama, assembling a coalition to fight ISIS is particularly important to a president whose initial arrival on the global stage was centered around his opposition to the war in Iraq. He is loath to be viewed as going it alone now that he has been dragged back into a combat role in the same country.
… An administration official said the reasons for assembling a coalition went beyond any political cover that such an alliance might provide with a war-weary American public. For one thing, the official said, certain countries bring expertise, like Britain and Australia in special operations, Jordan in intelligence and Saudi Arabia in financing.
An even better idea, as I posted recently, was provided by retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who said defeating the Islamic State requires a coalition and that it “needs an operational leader” other than the United States “working on behalf of the strategic U.S. position.” Who would provide such leadership? Eaton again.
I vote for Turkey to have its day in the sun, with its excellent armed forces. From a geopolitical perspective, this NATO member and U.S. ally is perfectly positioned to take lead.