There is no question that the battle against Daesh (Isis) is a formidable one. In military terms alone, it is probably no stronger, currently, than a group like Hizbollah of Lebanon but its ability to fight on different fronts, the chaotic conditions in which it operates, the financial resources it commands and the morale of fighters who believe they’re ushering the end of the world place Daesh in a category of its own.
In any battle, it is essential to see the enemy objectively. One should not underestimate it. However, overestimation – whether of its capacities or its objectives – can lead to fatal misjudgements, too.
Right now, Daesh is being overestimated in three key ways.
First, the stories of ‘home-grown’European jihadists are inflating the paranoia of a lurking massive threat within European societies.
There are several links and videos being shared ‘showing’ just what a threat free Europe faces from its own Muslim populations – all ready, apparently, to strip off its mask and turn fascist.
I have myself been sent just such a video of ‘Muslim leaders’ declaring, on film, that Europe will eventually be conquered by Islam. In fact, all but one of the ‘leaders’ shown are simply TV preachers; the exception is Muammar Gaddafi, whose credentials as a leader with religious authority were non-existent.
In an age where private satellite stations are mushrooming, it’s the easiest thing in the world to find a radical preacher spouting a message of soon-to-be greatness. They’re cultural entrepreneurs, just like any US televangelist. But almost all of them are leaders in search of a following.
The exception is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawy, whose programme on al-Jazeera has a worldwide following of 60 million (out of 1.2 billion Muslims) even though he has also been condemned by about 2,500 Muslim academics from 23 countries.
It’s noteworthy that the footage shows the audience of only one of these leaders: Gaddafi’s, which was, of course, a rented crowd. If we’re going to call the rest ‘Muslim leaders’ because they have a TV programme and an audience, then let’s be consistent.
It’s a definition of leadership that would make ‘Christian leaders’ of Pastor Gordon-John Manché and Edward Spiteri. If you’re not entirely happy with that, there’s a billion empathising Muslims I’d like to introduce you to.
Meanwhile, the friends and families of European-born jihadists almost all behave the same way: with surprise, anguish and even guilt that they did not detect anything.
The second way in which Daesh is being overestimated relates to how the words uttered by its operatives are sometimes inflated. Of course, we should pay attention to what Daesh says but we should also weigh it against the rest of what we know.
There’s no doubt that a Daesh fighter was heard saying, in a video, that “Rome is next”. There’s also no doubt about the intercepted memo by a Daesh recruiter in Libya, arguing for more fighters to be sent over from the Levant since Libya can serve as a stepping stone to Europe. There’s no doubt about the murderous intent behind such words.
But what weight do they have?
What ‘Rome’ means for Daesh is actually equivocal. The Libyan operative meant the Italian capital. But other Daesh ideologues say ‘Rome’ to mean Ankara (or Istanbul), the centre of the Byzantine empire or, simply, as a general symbol of the ‘crusader West’.
Daesh is being overestimated in three key ways
The meaning matters. If ‘Rome’ means either Ankara or the West, the likelihood is that Daesh jihadists will continue to flow east, hoping for a showdown in Syria (where, according to their selective reading of Islamic texts, they will fight a decisive battle against the West).
What is clear from the intercepted Libyan memo, however, is that Daesh is not banking on a dormant army of European Muslims to conquer Europe. The Libyan recruiter was lobbying for resources to be sent over; he did not ask for the go-ahead to tell Europe’s Muslims to take up arms. Daesh is not counting on Europe’s Muslims to join it. So why should we?
What’s also clear is that the memo’s writer is no military strategist. He may be a successful recruiter. But his memo argues for an invasion of Europe by sea. It’s clear that he has not thought things through.
Boats of armed terrorists would be spotted early, thanks to modern surveillance, and picked off from the air. Boats of unarmed terrorists posing as refugees in rickety vessels are not exactly a military threat, should they even make it to European shores.
We’ll have to see if the higher echelons of Daesh bought the argument (because that’s what it was – a plea for more resources, not an official strategy). But the likelihood is that Daesh won’t – at least, not just yet – go for a concerted massed attack on European territories, although the encouragement of lone wolf attacks is a different matter.
What we know now about Daesh’s understanding of itself and its grand strategy is that it wants first to conquer the Arab lands and then the rest of the Muslim world.
It believes it is going to bring about the end of the world: first, it will win a devastating victory against Western forces in Syria, then it will suffer several defeats at the hands of a redoubtable enemy who will probably emerge from Iran but, finally, when its forces are whittled down to 5000 men, it will be finally victorious (in a battle where Daesh forces are led by Jesus, who, according to Muslim tradition, will usher in the Last Judgement).
Such beliefs help explain why, for example, European jihadists are travelling to Syria and then burning their passports. It’s not exactly a sign that they plan to return to Europe. They see their calling as being in Syria for the decisive battle.
It also helps us explain how Daesh can be methodical and rational in its planning, while having mad, unsustainable goals, such as attempting to provoke every country, including the US, to attack it. Its belief system is premised on total war, waged continuously.
We know a lot of what Daesh believes thanks in large part to Graeme Wood’s report in the latest issue of The Atlantic. Unfortunately, Wood’s description of Daesh ideologues use of Islamic texts as ‘learned’ is likely to attract more attention.
The third way to overestimate Daesh is to conflate its beliefs with mainstream Islam. Reports like those of Wood will continue to come out and – although Wood himself is careful to say that most Muslims don’t share Daesh’s vision – will be taken to confirm that Daesh’s fascism is different from mainstream Islam only in degree.
The facts, however, are these.
No one who has ever bothered to follow what is known about violent Islamist groups would be surprised to learn that such Islamists are continually citing scripture and sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.
It’s a constant in such groups. But if that counts as ‘learned’, then your garden variety US evangelical pastor, or doorstep Jehovah Witness, should be counted as ‘learned’ in Christianity.
If Daesh’s invocation of Muslim tradition (some of it considered to be of doubtful authenticity by Muslim scholars) places it within mainstream Islam, then to be consistent we should place European fascism and white supremacy in mainstream European tradition, since they draw on (and transform) such European notions as ‘nation’ and ‘enlightenment’.
European fascism continues to be a dangerous force in European politics, something to guard against. We could say the same about violent Islamist groups. But we know the answer to the first threat is intelligent social inclusion and that’s also the answer to the second.
ranierfsadni@europe.com