@Eaglebauer Said
I understand where you're coming from, my point is that division in the case of a "militant" but not "military" organization which is also rooted in religion has a different efficacy than it does on an organization that is both militant
and military. While an army has a multitude of operating cells, they are not really capable of being autonomous and if you remove their supreme command (whatever that command may be), command automatically is redirected to a lower echelon. If the President is assassinated, the vice president becomes commander in chief, then the speaker, and so on down the line. A divided military is less potent, yes, but largely because it's one organism that has several moving parts.
A militant, but non military entity based in religion has a supreme command that is impermeable. In this case, Allah. Regardless of what leadership is in place within its ranks, each cell can break off on it's own and operate entirely autonomous to the rest of them because their supreme command, Allah, remains intact and always will. Those cells can then recruit and grow into more powerful, self sufficient operations and all the while, other cells are doing the same things. It's actually how they've become as powerful as they are. Kind of a chimera effect.
I mean sure, but in order to understand how we could make ISIS weak we must first understand why other hateful groups are weak, and how they have continued to stay that way for decades. If you cut out the legs of the recruiters, than it doesn't really end up mattering if the cells can operate autonomously; they'll never gain enough influence or power to really do anything. Sure, you'll never be able to cut out those legs completely, for much the same reason you'll never cut out the legs of Christian terrorist groups completely. There is an element, either religious or political, that just draws or speaks to certain people. I'm willing to bet, however, that the general population in the ME is much like our own in America. People caring more about their more immediate concerns than anything having to deal with a 'holy war with the west'.
The alternative is to burn every cell you can find, but that plan, even if you could eventually guarantee success, would take decades, if not centuries. It would be like trying to kill all the weeds in the world at once. Kill one and two more will sprout. Kind of reminds of the strategy for the war on drugs, really.
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the comparison to the Nazis? Are you just referring to them as a once formidable force that is now really not more than a nuisance? If so, I agree, I just want to clarify you're not using them as an example of something we've conquered through division...I'm not sure I'd follow.
Thanks!
Yes it was simply a comparison of a once strong force that was crushed into inadequacy. Although I would also argue that while the military might of the Allied Powers may have been responsible for destroying the Third Reich, if we had repeated history and billed Germany into oblivion again, we might have ended up with another extremist Germany all the same.