What Does ISIL Really Want?

Here is a map of modern Europe:

Here is a map of the Middle East and North Africa:

Look closely at the borders between countries on each map. Do you notice any differences between them? My guess is that you've noticed a lot more straight lines dividing nations in Africa and the Mid-East. This is no coincidence.

When European countries began decolonizing these areas in the first half of the 20th Century, they divided up the countries there based on what their colonial holdings were. The straight lines are the remnants of the diplomatically agreed upon borders of the colonies which the European nations controlled in these regions. They pay no attention to things like natural resources or traditional ethnic, religious, or cultural boundaries which existed before colonization. In short, they are almost wholly manufactured and arbitrary.

By contrast, one would be hard-pressed to find similarly-shaped nations in modern Europe. European countries, as they are today, are the product of centuries of conflicts and resolutions which gradually, naturally formed the borders we now see. They are entirely shaped by the cultural, religious, and diplomatic boundaries set forth by the people who actually live there.

One of the first things ISIL did once it had gained control of the swath of land it occupies in Syria and Iraq was literally bulldoze the existing border. In their eyes, it should never have been there. It represented an artificial division between groups of people who they believe should never have been divided.

Indeed, it is not difficult to speculate as to where countries might have formed if the Middle East had been allowed to decide its own fate. Within Iraq, even, we can see clear cultural divisions which still exist today. The Kurdish people live largely in the northern regions and the Shi’a Muslims live in the south. ISIL has taken control of areas historically dominated by Sunni Muslims. If nothing else, we should appreciate the fact that we are witnessing people with real ethnic and religious ties to this region creating their own borders for the first time.

But, alas, the situation is not so simple. ISIL is a violent organization, which has very clearly demonstrated that there is little they will not do to achieve their goals. The atrocities committed by this organization have been well-reported, fueling the fires of opposition against them. Public outrage has given rise to the belief that ISIL has a second goal on top of establishing an Islamic State: fighting America and all that we stand for. It is a perceived goal which is eerily similar to the goals of all of Americas enemies, particularly those we label as terrorists.

It is also a misconception. ISIL has called vocally for the United States and other Western nations to cease their involvement in the affairs of the Middle East, and has responded aggressively against Western organizations and institutions which are already present there. But we have taken this aggression — which ISIL almost certainly views as a form of self-defense — as a de facto declaration of war, and have responded in kind. In doing so, we have essentially ignored ISIL’s stated motives and replaced them with motives that instead stoke our fears and make them seem all the more evil to us. And this isn't the first time.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, committed by al-Qaeda, were borne of largely the same interests as ISIL’s acts of brutality. Osama bin Laden on numerous occasions denounced the United States for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, which is seen as the holiest Muslim country because it contains the cities of Medina and Mecca, during the Gulf War. The September 11 attacks were a direct result of his and his followers’ frustration at the United States’ keeping troops in Saudi Arabia after the war and refusing the vacate the region as a whole.

Today, anyone who brings up these points in a national debate is likely to be shouted down and accused of blaming America for 9/11. But if we are serious about understanding our enemies, we must be willing and able to examine their motivations as they see them, not just in ways which are easy to accept. And if we are serious about doing that then we must acknowledge the role that our interventions have — and will — play in motivating certain groups of people to act against us.

Whether or not ISIL has been totally honest about their motivations remains to be seen. We honestly have no way to know how they will act regarding a neutral America because there has never been an instance in modern history where America was not involved somehow in the region. But based on what they have said, if we were to do as they ask they may well be content to let us alone. Any assertion to contrary, no matter how loudly or authoritatively it is asserted, is ultimately baseless.

So what does ISIL really want? A rational consideration of all the information currently before us yields two primary goals: 1) To establish a Sunni Islamic state in regions of Iraq and Syria which traditionally belonged to that group of people, and 2) to fight to get America and the West out of the Middle East that they may more readily pursue the former.

Ironically, in the short term, it likely does not matter to ISIL and other extremists whether or not goal 2 is achieved. If we leave the region, ISIL will become more powerful and will likely be able to consolidate its power and form something of a real state. If we stay, more militants will flock into ISIL’s ranks, seeing that the claims made about us and our imperialistic nature by Islamic extremists are true. And even if we manage to destroy ISIL, another extremist group will undoubtedly emerge before long. Such has always been the case in the past, and there is likely no reason it will change in the future, making it ever harder for America to defend its interests in the Mid-East in this manner.

However, I do not claim my suggestion is a short term solution. The best way to defeat ISIL and groups like it is to plan for the long term and to come to peace with the fact that expecting short term results in this case is unrealistic. In truth, allowing ISIL to realize it’s goal of creating a state may actually bring them closer to their downfall. With that mindset, one solution stands far out beyond the rest.

Looking Back to Look Ahead

It is no secret to anyone that religion and politics are intertwined; they always have been. One would be hard pressed to look back through history and find a government or other political system which was totally divorced from all religious belief. That being said, there remains the inescapable fact that religion is, at its core, a human creation, and always exists inside a larger political (be it the politics of culture or the politics of government) context. Moreover, the substance of a religion is often dictated in large part by the politics of the day. Rarely will a stable political system be dictated by the religion which inhabits it. Instead, the religion is subservient, and, perhaps most importantly, will change if the political circumstances governing it demand that it does so.

In order to demonstrate this phenomenon, I will turn to an examination of Islam’s sibling within the Abrahamic tradition: Christianity. Today, Christianity does not find itself at the center of as much turmoil and conflict as Islam. There are some who would contend that this is due to fundamental differences in the ideologies of these different faiths, but really it is due to the differing characteristics of the political environments within which each religion evolved.

Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism. Its defining characteristic was its belief that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, not simply another prophet. This belief would give rise to a religion which has survived through the ages, and which today can claim over one billion adherents across the globe. But Christianity has not survived unchanged throughout all this time. Quite the contrary; it has altered its traditions and rhetoric or otherwise sacrificed part of itself on numerous occasions throughout history in order to both ensure its survival and retain its prominence. The very first example of this kind of action is present within the Bible itself.

According to most biblical accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion, it was not Pontus Pilate, the Roman governor of Jerusalem, who sealed his fate, but the Jewish masses. Pilate famously washes his hands of all responsibility for Jesus’s execution after the Jewish mob insists that Jesus is not, as some claim, The King of the Jews. Historically speaking, it is highly unlikely that those events would have unfolded in such a fashion.

Firstly, it is doubtful that Pontus Pilate would have taken the time to personally speak to Jesus and oversee his execution. As far as he was concerned, Jesus was just another Jewish revolutionary, of which there were many at that time (for a detailed look into the life and times of the historical Jesus, I would strongly recommend the book Zealot by Reza Aslan), and his death would not warrant the presence or oversight of a governor. Secondly, if Pilate truly did absolve himself of all involvement, Jesus would probably not have been crucified. Crucifixion was strictly a Roman punishment, reserved for people who had committed crimes against the state, such as sedition. The historical Jesus was, in all likelihood killed by the Romans.

But if this were the case, then what reason would the writers of the Bible have to change the story? The story was changed (or, as they would have understood it, altered so as to reveal a greater truth) in order to separate early Christianity from Judaism. This served a theological purpose, of course, one that made Christianity more distinct as its own religion, but it also realized a political end.

During the time of early Christianity, the Romans were cracking down on rebellious Jewish populations across the Empire. It would have been very dangerous for the first Christians to be associated with the Jews, and pinning Jesus’s death on them was a good way to separate the two religions and keep the Christians relatively safe. It also helped to ensure that Christians did not attempt to revolt against the Romans in the same way that the Jews did, which almost certainly would have resulted in the destruction of the fledgling faith.

Within a few hundred years — a remarkably short time for such a shift — Christianity would become the official religion of the Roman Empire. The establishment of the Catholic Church followed suit. Unfortunately, the Empire did not last for more than two centuries after it had adopted Christianity, and its collapse forced the religion to make yet another shift.

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church became a political power unto itself, with its head in the form of the Pope, who lived in and ruled from Rome. For almost a millennium onward, individual kings and lords would struggle in various ways against the church to gain certain degrees of autonomy. Often, this resulted in uneasy truces between the two. The church granted monarchs the divine right to rule and the monarchs ensured that church property and personnel were protected. Neither could truly be said to be winning.

It was not until a German monk named Martin Luther rose up to challenge the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the rulers and governments of Europe would gain the upper hand. Protestantism, the name for what Luther’s version of Christianity would become, was far more focused on the agency of the individual than was the custom up until this point. Popery and excessive formality and tradition were no longer considered necessary. It was each person’s right and duty to pray, be faithful, and perform good works in the manner of their choosing. Gone was the need to conform to a strict set of theological laws and doctrine. The focus was now on a decentralization of authority. Martin Luther went so far as to translate the Bible into German from Latin to ensure that any who wanted to would be able to read and interpret it for themselves.

“The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.” — Martin Luther

This prospect was quite attractive to many European lords, as it appeared to offer them the autonomy they desired. Protestantism was soon adopted by a number of the small German kingdoms which existed at the time. But the Catholic Church, to which the larger political system of the Holy Roman Empire was loyal to, was not willing to let these kingdoms leave its fold unchallenged. This disagreement would ultimately lead to the Thirty Years War, a long and bloody conflict which ended in a truce. The Peace of Westphalia, the agreement that ended the war, permitted individual states to choose their own religion, instead of having to conform to Catholicism. That treaty is often credited with the creation of what we know today as the nation-state and the concept of national sovereignty.

The adoption of Protestantism in Europe eventually allowed for the rapid return of scientific enlightenment, and – because of its increased focus on the individual – for the return of democracy to the continent, which had not been seen in Europe since ancient Greece. Before the advent of Protestantism, Christianity, like any other religion, would have been incompatible with democracy. A system based on a dissemination of authority, with agency housed in the individual rather than the institution, would have been seen as a fundamental threat to the existing religious hierarchy. It was only through political pressure on the religious system that the religion itself was moderated and brought into the future. It would be erroneous to assume that Protestantism would have achieved the popularity it did if the German nobility did not see the political gains — largely in the form of increased independence — which could be made through its adoption.

The separation of church and state, which we hold in such high regard, only came aboout because a political system at one time actively sought to break away from the domineering forces of religion. It was not religion which backed down on its own; it never will be.

Even today, we can see the Christian religion changing itself in order to cope with political modernity. In its eternal struggle to retain import and relevancy, the Catholic Church, under Pope Francis I, is taking steps towards being more welcoming to gays, divorced and remarried women, and other groups which it greatly marginalized just a few years ago. Similarly, among many other denominations of the religion, a discussion is taking place regarding whether or not to allow priests to perform same-sex marriages in the growing number of places in which is has been made legal.

This is not to say that Christianity has become a perfectly modern, benign religion through and through. Such is far from the case. American Evangelists stoke the fires of intolerance both in the United States and abroad and conservative divisions of Christianity still hold sway in much of the Global South. But nowhere in the world will one find a Christian group which has – and continues to – commit atrocities on the level of ISIL. Again, this is not because of doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam, but rather because of stark differences in their political evolution.

Christianity, throughout its formative period of development, existed within a largely stable environment. This is not to say that Medieval Europe was in any way a stable system, but rather that it experienced little pressure from outside sources in terms of cultural influence. In other words, the term stability here refers to a political system which is insular and which the people it governs accept as legitimate. For a system to be stable in this sense does not require that there are not frequent changes in territory or the actual form of government. These changes may happen, but they must happen as a result of local catalysts alone.

Europe, especially the western portions of it, were rarely subject to long term invasions or other forms of aggressive cultural incursions by outsiders. The Moors were confined merely to the southern half of Iberia and the Viking raiders who often plagued the northern coasts of the continent would wind up assimilating to Christian religion and culture before they could have any effect in the reverse direction. Of course, outside influences played a part in European development – Marco Polo brought back stories and ideas from China and the crusaders often returned from their exploits with ancient texts regarding topics of science and philosophy – but all of those influences were brought back from other places by Europeans who had traveled there, not by the outsiders themselves. The Islamic world, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same freedom to progress unhindered.

Throughout the course of its history, the Middle East has been contested. Rarely has one single power firmly held it – or even a part of it – for an extended period of time. When Islam first began in the 7th Century, it was a religion of empire. The Muslim armies, newly invigorated by their faith, conquered a large area of land stretching from the Iberian Peninsula across North Africa and the Middle East to Baghdad. But, as many empires do, these large caliphates broke apart not long after their initial leadership died out. There was a schism within the Islamic religion, as well, a disagreement centered around whether or not the caliph (the leader of all Muslims) must be a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad or not. This would give rise to the Sunni and Shi’a factions we know of today. The Middle East, the center of the Islamic world, found itself fractured.

The next several centuries would see countless invasions, war, missionary efforts, and cultural incursions tear through the region. The European crusades ensured that there existed an almost constant state of war in the region which we know today as Israel, Byzantine Christians clashed ceaselessly with Turkish armies, and Persian and Mongols conquerors would subjugate and then subsequently lose control of various areas with great frequency. Christian missionaries from Western Europe were relentless in their quest to acquire new followers and nearly universal in their denunciation of Islam. At no point during this time could the Muslims of the Middle East be considered isolated; at no point did they exist within a stable, insular society.

This meant that Islam would certainly not develop along the same lines that Christianity was developing. Its struggle with politics did not occur within a single system, but within many, thus tangible evolution in the form of moderation due to political considerations was almost impossible. The atmosphere was simply too volatile and capricious.

The aforementioned state of affairs might have gone on indefinitely had it not been for the Ottoman Turks. The Ottomans conquered the whole of the Middle East, Turkey (then known by Anatolia), Greece, and Egypt, destroying the Byzantine Empire and unifying these long-separated regions and people. Its effects on the religion were almost immediate.

Christians and Jews living within the empire saw markedly improved levels of toleration towards them, levels which far surpassed what Muslims would receive in Europe at that time. The Ottoman Empire, though Islamic by decree and popular majority, was a largely secular system. It’s capital, Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), was – and still is – one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. It was a melting pot of different cultures, where each one was able to coexist peacefully. There were bumps in the road, in the form of several more extremist emperors, but by and large such was not the case. Islam was now firmly at the head of a political system, one which was stable and one which began to moderate the religion.

The Ottomans were ruling over vast and diverse areas of land. They recognized that if they were to rule all of these groups of people in a way which would both benefit them and secure their leadership, any kind of heavy-handed religiosity must be done away with. And so it was. It was an effect comparable to the end results of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. The moderation of the religion allowed for numerous cultural and scientific advancements, ushering in a Renaissance-like period of growth which lasted for hundreds of years.

But, unfortunately, due to increasingly greedy and incompetent leaders, the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. While Europe was steadily increasing its global prominence, colonizing and conquering huge portions of the world, ensuring that Christianity would be kept in constant check by expanding and powerful politics, the Ottoman Empire was declining and sinking into literal and figurative disrepair. The killing blow for the empire came at the end of World War I, when it was broken up and divided amongst the winning powers. The country of Turkey remains the sole remnant of its existence.

With the Ottoman Empire now divided between the Allied nations, the people of the Middle East once again found themselves living beneath a government which was not their own. Their forms of expression were repressed, leading to increased resistance to the colonial powers in the form of heightened religious fundamentalisms over time. When these countries had been given their independence by European standards, the world the people there lived in was unrecognizable to them due to, as previously discussed, national boundaries which were entirely fabricated. Even though they technically had control over their own fate, it likely would not have felt that way to them.

Neither did the Western nations truly leave the Middle East alone once they granted it independence. The United States was often at odds with Iran and struggled against the Soviet Union for proxy control of Afghanistan. Oil producing countries in the region found that their ties to Western countries ultimately became closer than the general populace wanted. NATO’s continued support for Israel has also presented a threat in the eyes of many in the region. They view this support also as a condemnation of Israel’s enemies, an assumption which is often not very far from the truth. America has also often propped up rulers who were cruel or oppressive towards their people because those leaders better suited our interests. And then of course there came the Gulf War and, after 9/11, the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With all of this meddling, the Middle East as a whole can hardly be considered the stable system it was during the days of the Ottomans.

The advent of the modern era has seen Islam in the Mid-East sliding backwards into intolerance and violence, a slide which has now manifested itself in the form of ISIL and their brutality, as well as the Taliban and al-Qaeda before them. But given all of the history we have before us to examine, this reversal should come as no surprise. There are no unifying political struggles to check the dominance of religion; the region is divided against itself and the outside world at the same time.

Not only that, but, given the current political climate, it is actually politically expedient to encourage religious extremism, not tamper it. Espousing radical and aggressive doctrine will net radical and aggressive followers. These kinds of people make for the perfect force to stand against all those who ISIL deems invaders. They are dedicated to the fight, zealous in their belief in the cause, and, most importantly, are more than willing to lay down their lives if that becomes necessary. From a rational perspective, ISIL has no reason to preach toleration or to open up a dialogue for compromise, as doing either of these things may well lose them their crucial base of support.

Before continuing any further, I would like to broaden the scope of my discussion here so as to show that the trend I have explained is a universal one, not just one which is limited to Europe and the Mid-East. Throughout the developed world, we can see examples of increased religious toleration and moderation. In Europe, the influence of Christianity has dwindled such that it is almost non-existent in some places. In the United States, one of the most religious developed countries, the personal freedoms of citizens are constantly growing. Same-sex marriage is legal in over half of the fifty states now, representing a step forward which even fifteen years ago would have seemed far-fetched. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey – all Muslim majority countries – are solid (Turkey perhaps slightly less so) examples of toleration and modernity. Turkey has actually elected more female heads of state than the United States (which is, to say, any at all). The common thread in all of these cases is a strong, stable government which is accepted by the people.

The opposite can be said for the regions of the world which have not yet reached the later stages of political and economic development. In the fractured and impoverished nations of Central Africa, religious violence from both Christians and Muslims is a constant threat. Uganda’s government recently tried to pass some of the harshest anti-homosexuality laws the world has ever seen. The movement to do that was largely spearheaded by American Evangelicals. These extremists have stopped preaching in the United States because there is no longer an audience for them here.

Highly conservative forms of Christianity have also taken hold in many South American countries where the government’s lack the power or the will to rule the population effectively and thus cannot act as a buffer against these beliefs. In recent years, the more progressive sections of certain sects of Christianity, based in Europe and America, have clashed with their more conservative counterparts below the equator. In many ways, it is almost as if we are looking at two separate religions.

In every case, it is political instability or unease caused by colonial intervention which has allowed extreme forms of these religions to propagate themselves. Both Christianity and Islam fall victim to this trend, a trend which should more than adequately demonstrate that the conditions in the Middle East are not at all the result of special features of Islamic theology. Given all of this information, it becomes readily apparent that the political instability of the Middle East is nothing short of a breeding ground for violent ideologies, and it will not be made any better by our continued intervention there.

The Effects of Neutrality

The end results of a policy of neutrality would likely come as a pleasant, if inherently predictable, surprise. One could imagine we might see substantial changes in the borders between nations there, as various governments begin to establish themselves and stabilize their respective holdings. Once that happens, we would likely see a continuation of the theme which has characterized the relations between the Abrahamic faiths and politics since their formative years. We would likely see a stable, modern, and tolerant Middle East. Governments there would never be able to stay in power for long if they did not follow along these lines. Fundamentalism begets fundamentalism, and even a state which begins the way ISIL has will have to moderate itself in order to ensure its survival. To do anything else would condemn the leaders of such a state to be deposed in a revolution by people even more extreme than them.

But remaining neutral would require some real sacrifice on our part. The United States has certain interests in the region which some would argue might be compromised by our departure. It should be noted, though, that American energy independence is, if current movements keep up, just over the horizon. Our dependence of foreign oil is at an historic low, and will hopefully only continue to drop until it is nonexistent.

Furthermore, some might fear that remaining neutral would necessitate that we cut ties with Israel. This need not be the case. A slight loosening of our relationship would in no way be damning to our relations with them. And we need not be concerned for Israel’s safety if we do so, either. Israel does not depend on American aid nearly as much as it did years ago – it currently comprises a mere 3% of Israel’s GDP. The Jewish state would likely be hurt very little by whatever actions we take. And we may also be secure in the knowledge that taking this route would likely make all of us at home that much safer, as we will have eliminated the enemy’s justification to attack us.

This whole process, however, will likely take time. Its results may not become evident until after our lifetimes are over. In the interim, there is sure to be more violence of the kind we have been seeing, albeit violence which will in all probability be directed entirely away from us. It is for this reason that a policy of neutrality is not an easy thing to ask for, or to follow through with. It would require us to stand idly by while witnessing whatever may come. This inaction is in direct conflict with ideals of humanitarian intervention, and would seem to go against all that most people today believe to be good conscience. But this inaction would be in service to a far greater good, and it is that fact which must sustain our resolve.

Most crucially, we will need to turn away from certain acts of violence which have already been carried out against our own people. What ISIL has done can never truly be forgiven; it’s name will never be absolved of the crimes it has committed. But we still must always remember that this violence was designed specifically to provoke, wound, and terrorize us so deeply that we cannot help but to lash out. That is the true will of this enemy, and it is something we should never give in to.

Democracy

I recognize that the course of action I am suggesting is not an easy one to accept. I recognize, in the current political state of affairs, the unlikelihood of its implementation. I recognize that in a public debate it would almost certainly be met with strong resistance, by arguments that it runs contrary to basic decency and common sense.

But all the same I still believe it should be discussed, and I maintain the likelihood of its success. In all circumstances it is crucial to assess every possible perspective before coming to a decision, doubly so in cases of dire importance such as this. That is the very nature of the democracy we live in, the democracy that most people want so desperately to give the Middle East. But democracy is government of, for, and by the people; according to its very nature it is something which cannot be given. In order for it to flourish, democracy must always been given the chance to occur on its own.