The Return of the Gold Dinar: What is ISIS Up To?

ISIS Video: The Return of the Gold Dinar

ISIS is extremely proud of their latest video but, trust me, it’s a bit of a snorefest. But, it’s also very different. The horrific violence they’re known for is there but only in comparatively small doses. Instead they’ve opted to take a lot of fringe financial theory (the kind you might have heard already if you pay attention to Ron Paul or Glenn Beck ) and wrap it The Mummy Returns production values. Then, just like a college freshmen who has taken one economics class and read a dozen conspiracy theory websites, they drone on and on and on. It’s weird – just not weird enough to be interesting.

Of course, what we really need to know is why they’re going to all of this trouble. I’m still processing this but from their perspective:

  1. The production values project authority and capability. Their internal and external audiences both need reassurance.
  2. The pseudo-intellectual financial theory will not impress economists but it will resonate with people who view alternative financial systems as a rejection of current political systems. There are large numbers of people in the Middle East – and the United States who share this view.
  3. It checks the theology box by claiming to be a model that is more inline with Islamic principals.
  4. Money is central to statehood so this reinforces that claim.
  5. At the end of the day the ISIS wants to be seen as a viable alternative to existing powers. Videos like this (and the factors mentioned above) help support that case – at least in the eyes of potential recruits and supporters.

The alignment with the non-Islamic conspiracy thought in the West is the most intriguing aspect of this communication. Is this convergence intentional or is it a coincidence arising out of the fact that these ideas on the financial fringe have been circulating for a long time? I can’t make a call on that at the moment but it is certainly a question worth considering.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Letters from Operation Desert Shield


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Iraq’s Ambassador to the United States, Lukman Faily, Updates Blogs of War on the ISIL Threat

Ambassador Lukman FailyThe Ambassador was kind enough to take some additional questions. I originally submitted these questions to him the day before there were widespread reports of, if not a coup, at least a difficult political transition in Baghdad. That situation has since stabilized somewhat but the environment remains challenging.

John Little: How would you describe the security situation in and around Baghdad at his time? Has the Iraqi government made progress in its preparations for a possible ISIL assault?

Ambassador Faily: The situation in Baghdad itself is stable, however there are pockets in the outskirts of the city where ISIL has launched attacks. These attacks have been pushed back by the Iraqi security forces as we’ve stepped up our defenses to protect the capital against potential attacks.

John Little: Has your government’s relationship with the Kurdistan Regional Government changed in any significant way since the start of the ISIL offensive?

Ambassador Faily: The central government and the Kurdistan regional government have been cooperating on military, humanitarian and political matters to confront the serious threat of ISIL. Joint operations centers have been established to coordinate these efforts. As an example, the Iraqi Air Force has been supporting Kurdish peshmerga forces in the Sinjar area as part of our joint efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Yazidi community who have been trapped on Mount Sinjar.

John Little: At the start of this crisis U.S. support for Iraq seemed uncertain. There has obviously been some progress but, from the outside looking in, it seems that there is still a fair amount of uncertainty. Do you feel like your government has reasonable assurances of support from the Obama administration? What immediate action would you like to see?

Ambassador Faily: We are in constant talks with the US Administration regarding military and humanitarian cooperation.We appreciate President Obama’s courageous decision to conduct airstrikes in response to ISIL’s attempt to commit genocide against minorities in Iraq. This is a brutal terrorist organization that has even been denounced by Al-Qaeda. Many of its members hold Western passports, and it is clear that their ambitions extend far beyond the Middle East. Therefore, drastic and immediate actions are required to counter this imminent threat from ISIL. Given the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Iraq, broader and more intensive airstrikes and additional humanitarian assistance would help mitigate against further atrocities.

John Little: The United States and others can blunt the ISIL threat and buy the Iraqi government some time but ultimately it has to be responsible for its own security and stability. Many are worried that the Iraqi government is countering extremism with extremism through its reliance on government-aligned militias. Is a truly inclusive Iraqi government and society possible?

Ambassador Faily: Yes. We have seen significant progress over the past 6 weeks as Iraq’s political leaders have come together to elect the Speaker and President. Recently, a prime minister designate was named. All three positions were chosen through broad agreement among Iraq’s political leaders, who stand united against the common threat of ISIL, and we are likely to see the formation of an inclusive government within a month that will lead the charge against these brutal terrorists.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisPrint this pageEmail this to someone

The Islamic State Will Not Survive – Despite Its Big Gains

Warhammer - Mark of Chaos

I am firmly in the camp which believes that ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, has overplayed its hand. They’re smart, organized, well-led, and now resource rich but they are also betting everything on a strategy that creates more enemies than allies and which will eventually force many divergent world powers to collaboratively focus their military might at deconstructing whatever the Islamic State attempts to stand up.

Any radical jihadist caliphate, or any significant attempt at one, will soon be returned to its failed state roots. Military hardware, command and control facilities, military barracks, forces on the move, and any industrial capabilities are easy targets for first world armies. We still struggle with nation building but we can deconstruct a state with unparalleled efficiency. This leaves us with the assurance that any imperialistic jihadist caliphate will unquestionably be dismantled if not pounded into fine-grained dust. Unfortunately, that only solves a small part of a much larger problem.

The Islamic State will never be much of state in the traditional sense. You certainly won’t see them tearing up the bobsled track in the 2018 Winter Olympics or chairing a UN committee. Survival, not expansion, will become their primary goal soon enough. But the end result of all of this will almost certainly be intractable chaos – not game winning stabilization. And creating chaos plays to their broader movement’s long game. Deconstructing a state, no matter how fragile, is a massive win for the forces seeking to upend the current world order even if they ultimately lose the big gamble.

The unfortunate truth in all of this is that there is a large and diverse set of forces in the world seeking to subvert the current order. Some of them have clearly defined objectives while others do not. Few of them are in agreement but that’s beside the point. All of them, thanks to technological advances, are radically empowered. The problem is that if these forces continue to march forward with the cheap and easy strategy of destabilization while the rest of the world struggles with the massively expensive and frequently unsuccessful strategies of stabilization something will eventually have to give.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State might ultimately be a footnote in history. I certainly don’t think either one of them will live long in the big scheme of things. But that does not mean that they have not been successful. They have claimed territory, if not for their own cause, for the cause of chaos. In the short term we will defeat them but if we do not learn how to fight a thousand year war, and ultimately tame the chaos, it might not matter.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisPrint this pageEmail this to someone