60 reported dead in Paris

France is in mourning and in shock. We still don’t know how many people were killed and injured. In fact, there’s a lot we still don’t know—including who was responsible. The ISIS claim of responsibility tells us virtually nothing about who really planned or carried out the attacks; opportunist claims are an old story. But the lack of information hasn’t prevented lots of assumptions about who is “obviously” responsible and what should be done to them. Already the call is rising across France—“this time it’s all-out war.”
<snip>
But we do know what happens when cries of war and vengeance drown out all other voices; we’ve heard them before.

Because now everyone knows the devastating wars that killed so many hundreds of thousands of ordinary people didn’t work to wipe out terrorism. Terrorism survives wars; people don’t. Because you can’t bomb terrorism—you can only bomb people. You can bomb cities. Sometimes you might kill a terrorist—but that doesn’t end terrorism, it only encourages more of it.

Jukerado wrote: <snip>

I encourage everyone to read this in-depth, extensive article on "What ISIS Really Wants". It is a true eye-opener:

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/201...really-wants/384980/

And yet the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: <snip> they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?

Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.

The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest. Al-Qaeda’s core is rare among jihadist groups for its focus on the “far enemy” (the West); most jihadist groups’ main concerns lie closer to home. That’s especially true of the Islamic State, precisely because of its ideology. It sees enemies everywhere around it, and while its leadership wishes ill on the United States, the application of Sharia in the caliphate and the expansion to contiguous lands are paramount.

Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor.

Jukerado wrote: We're not going to coax ISIS out with a Hershey bar, then whack 'em. Nor can we carpet bomb the Middle East, although I have also heard the (illogical) cries to do so. We can't be everywhere and solve every other country's problems, and I'm also against committing our ground forces in Syria and Iraq. As our military has been cut to the quick and the internal temperature isn't helping recruitment (I personally feel that teachers, nurses, and the military should be the highest paid occupations - but I digress) - we must do all we can to strengthen the Kurds and the Israelis - for they are 100% committed to the cause. We can simply redirect a lot of misspent foreign aid.

<snip>

I'll defer to you, my dear, as I've said my piece. God bless America and all those who go in harm's way.

Graeme Wood's “What ISIS Really Wants,” published in the March 2015 edition of The Atlantic, has quickly become the most widely read article on the militant group. Indeed, it is becoming the most read article ever published by The Atlantic.

Popular as it is, Wood's essay is deeply flawed and alarmingly tone-deaf – dangerously so.