ISIS: This too shall pass

Interesting argument below by the Director of Global Security Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He states we don’t need to worry too much about the ISIS in Iraq.

ISIS: This too shall pass.

I’ve got to say, he makes some great points and pulls together a pretty compelling case, in my opinion.

What do you guys think? (And let’s keep the Bush and Obama bashing as limited — and respectful — as possible.)

Keep the faith, my fellow members of Mitchell’s Militia,

Stan R. Mitchell

Oak Ridge, Tenn.

P.S. Please consider subscribing for email alerts of new posts.

 If you enjoy fast-paced books, you just might like my works. “Sold Out” tracks the life of a legendary Marine Sniper after a CIA unit decides to kill him for reasons of national security. “Little Man, and the Dixon County War” tells the uphill fight a young deputy faces after finding himself in the sights of a mighty cattle baron. And “Soldier On,” a short novel, follows the lives of several German soldiers in a depleted infantry company trying to make it through the final, miserable months of World War II.

6 thoughts on “ISIS: This too shall pass

  1. I suspect that to beat this enemy we will have to go back to the saying: Rape, pillage and plunder. Not necessarily rape. Going back to the Middle Ages when the Knights Templar and the Knights from England got together, they had to push the Muslims out of Spain. More resistance in Turkey and finally to the Holy Land, bloody batles all. They tried to kill everyone they could but it only remained in a stalemate when it was all over. We got stupid during WWI and only signed an armistice, then later a treaty. We figured out (finally) during WWII to go after a complete surrender and stay there until the enemy came to know our ways and that we meant business. We bombed and faught the enemy on the ground. When that proved futile, we bombed their factories, when that proved useless, we bombed their cities, then their hospitals and even their schools. When they had nothing left to fight for or with, the enemy gave up.
    We are no longer able to completely destroy cities (politically incorrect). We can no longer bomb their Mosques, same reason. If an innocent civilian gets in the way, you better quit shooting and hide. We are in a world that has an enemy willing to kill our women and children but we are unable to retaliate likewise. Therefore and because of—we will be in an indefinite war for as long as there are Muslims and or Communists.


  2. I think one thing that might play a role in this is social media and the internet. It’s easy to play down its power, but there are women demanding the right to drive in Saudi Arabia and women braving death in Afghanistan, insisting upon their rights.

    It’s easy to manipulate groups of people who don’t have additional knowledge at their hand, but the days of being able to do that on a really large scale are coming to an end.


  3. I can’t say for sure, but I would be willing to bet that there were Western commentators back in the ’90s who were saying that this group al-Qaeda would never amount to much.
    I think it’s inaccurate to say that because ISIS is setting itself up more as a conventional, revolutionary military force, with designs on capturing and taking over territory, they are destined to fail. The writer implies that’s because ISIS will then have to actually run a country rather than terrorize it, and they won’t be able to do it, either because they’ll be incapable of the effort or because some outside force will organize a campaign to take the territory back. This is assuming that some outside force will want to undertake such a costly campaign, a big assumption since it is amply clear that the present American administration has no intention of doing it, and there’s nobody else out there capable of such a campaign.
    Maybe we should look on ISIS as the next generation of terrorists. From what I’ve seen they are pretty well organized, aggressive and competent enough on the battlefield to deal one defeat after another to the Iraqi military, which may not be saying much, but until the Iranians get into the game the Iraqis are the only force opposing ISIS on the ground. Is it possible this outfit has learned a thing or two about the failures of the Taliban and al-Qaeda? If so, we might have some real trouble here. Mr. Stout doesn’t seem to think so. Let’s hope he’s right, because if he’s not…


      1. That is a pretty sobering story from Baghdad. Al-Sadr is seizing the opportunity denied him by the US ten years ago. Undoubtedly he sees himself running the Shia portion of whatever remains of Iraq when this is over—if it ever will be over, that is.


Comments are always welcome!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s