User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive


Then, we have the new and upcoming theory of "disruption". Government think tanks around the globe have decreed that although it may not be possible to permanently defeat ISIL (or any other such organization for that matter) it is possible to disrupt their operations to a point at which they no longer represent a threat. Great. And then what?

What will guarantee that such organizations won't rise again? The answer? Permanent, continuous financial, military and intelligence operations.

The only problem with this thesis is that it is not economically viable because it is not scalable. Countries can do this with one organization. Ten organizations. But what about hundred organizations? Thousand organizations? More? At which point all these government operations become ineffective? We don't know but it is clear that at some point governments will be stretched too far to be effective.


In a sense ISIL is invincible because governments are not fighting against a military force but against political evolution. This is not a winnable fight. For as long as there are people holding ISIL beliefs, ISIL will continue to exist and operate. Even if they could somehow kill every single ISIL believer / follower, this would still not make any difference because similar beliefs will rise from the ashes. This is so because people have not evolved politically. Until this evolution happens, until people disbelieve in the concept of Caliphate, ISIL-like beliefs will continue to exist.


Let them be

The real solution is much, much simpler and it originates from understanding political evolution. The only manner in which a fight against ISIL is winnable is for ISIL members and followers to evolve politically and there is only one way to do so: Let them be. What this means is for all invading nations to get out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may. Of course, this political science fiction, but it is the only winnable option.

Perceived dangers

Of course, the nations that invaded Iraq (especially the US) they did so in order to control oil. This much is obvious. However, their PR line is different. They are staying in Iraq to "protect" their citizens against "terrorist" threats. This line is, again, strictly for public consumption. However, there is a deeper fear in high bureaucratic and corporate levels. This fear is that if governments retreat from Iraq it will fall in extremist hands. If this should happen oil can be used to blackmail business or worse. To extend militant and extremist Islamic views throughout the region. Countries will fall one by one in an orgy of death and destruction (and financial losses… let's not forget these ones) and this will mean the end of the world as we know it.

Well… nonsense!

The domino theory

This is the same old stupid "domino effect" theory that was held in high regard during the cold war. The west needed to "contain" the USSR to prevent countries from falling in communist hands one by one. Yet, throughout the entire cold war very few countries were assimilated into the USSR's sphere of influence and almost all of them with dire consequences… for the USSR. It is true that in some instances this did happen because of monetary support from the US, however in other instances this was not the case at all. Furthermore, in all instances the USSR was rejected by the local people themselves. The domino theory is bollocks!

Current examples

In recent history, several countries have fallen into the hands of extremist Islamic or Islamic-like governments. Take for example Iran and Libya. What can we learn from them? Well that despite all their threats and vociferous instigations their faith or system has not spread throughout the region. Despite all their "intelligence efforts" other countries have not joined them. Despite the mighty power of their own state, they are pathetically ineffective in creating unions or coalitions. The truth is that as soon as a movement becomes a state, its behaviour changes dramatically. This is so for two reasons:

  • They have now a great deal more to lose
  • Their power base becomes diluted by many people with different wishes

Degrees of separation

There is yet another reason why effective coalitions are not formed in that area of the world. This is so because for lesser politically evolved cultures their own pre-eminence is critical. They believe that they are right and they are not yet ready to accept the fact that everybody is right… and wrong. It is a personal decision.

As such, they won't accept any order originating in a different belief or culture. It is for this reason that no political or religious coalition in the Arab region was ever more than a formality or when operational, proved to be lasting. Different Arab cultures are simply separated by too many degrees of separation. Irreconcilable differences if you like.

Let them be - again

In a sense, letting them be is not letting the loose, it is letting them being contained by other Arab people with different beliefs. Letting them be simply means fighting fire with fire.

The only way to win a politically evolutionary-driven conflict is by letting people evolve. They cannot do so under external threat. Political evolution is an internal, culture-based event and cultures cannot be imposed to this level. It is for this reason that the only way to win is not to play. Let nature take its course. Eventually, over time, people will become thoroughly disillusioned with the concept of Caliphate and will meet the conditions for true political change. At that time, things will become different.

Meanwhile, there really is no danger in letting them be. At least not at the domino-effect level. Sure, some skirmishes and minor operations may happen, but eventually they will subside. Countries learn quickly that none of these ops advances their goals while doing a lot to discredit them. If you take a look at the current world, you will notice that most such operations are launched by "movements" and not by governments. The risk/reward ratio is biased toward reward for movements because they have nothing (or very little to lose). However, this same ratio is biased towards risk for government because they do have a lot to lose.

Again, let them be. Eventually the failure of their own system will doom them and allow them to evolve into a less extreme system.


The policies of destruction that have been concocted against ISIL are doomed to failure. ISIL is indestructible whether as ISIL or as a similarly-minded organization that will sprout from their ashes. These policies are indeed stupid because they don't understand nor recognize the political evolutionary path Arab people are on. The only way to win is not to play… but then again… this is not in their play book. They are incapable of thinking beyond the limitations of their own political evolutionary stage.

But then, yet again, this is our analysis. If you believe differently, if you believe that you need to support governments against ISIL, fair enough. Be warned however that nobody is excluded from the list.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It