A couple of nights back, feeling nostalgic, I rewatched “Three Days of the Condor.” A fun, well-made flick, even though paranoia films can often be tiresome. In it, John Houseman, as a world-weary CIA man, is asked whether he missed the kind of action he saw in WWII fighting in “Wild Bill” Donovan’s O.S.S.
No, he says: He missed that kind of clarity.
Well, with the so-called Islamic State, there is plenty of clarity, at least on the point of who the bad guys are.
This evening, The Wall Street Journal is leading with this: U.S. Believes ISIS Used Chemical Weapon on Kurds.
Yesterday, we had the report that the group claimed to have beheaded another helpless hostage.
But the thing that is really moving the needle, the news that takes us to new levels of depravity in our understanding of these monsters, is the lede story in The New York Times at this hour:
Escaped ISIS Captives Detail a Vast System of Sex Slavery
or, as the headline on the page that link takes you to says, “ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape:”
The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution. Interviews with 21 women and girls who recently escaped the Islamic State, as well as an examination of the group’s official communications, illuminate how the practice has been enshrined in the group’s core tenets….
A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year, and at least 3,144 are still being held, according to community leaders. To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts. And the practice has become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden.
A growing body of internal policy memos and theological discussions has established guidelines for slavery, including a lengthy how-to manual issued by the Islamic State Research and Fatwa Department just last month. Repeatedly, the ISIS leadership has emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.
“Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s….
There have been in history lots of bad guys who treat women as booty, as things to reward their troops with. Such men are the scum of the Earth, and it is the duty of civilized people everywhere to stop them.
But making a religion of it? Not being satisfied to degrade and brutalize women unless you defile God as well? Seriously? Raping women — and on a massive scale — just isn’t evil enough for you?
Related Posts
Dragging God into it is just so GRATUITOUS, as though mere rape isn’t horrific enough.
It reminds me of a passage from Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities, in which a character is marveling at a tabloid headline that read, “Scalp Grandma, then rob her.” The character is blown away at the absurdist, pointless, anticlimactic genius of adding “then rob her,” as if the scalping weren’t outrageous enough to carry the headline. With more room, he mused, they might have added, “then leave all the lights on in her kitchen”…
Such men are the scum of the Earth, and it is the duty of civilized people everywhere to stop them.
-Brad
That’s all fine and good but the devil is in the details. The Bush doctrine brought this whole situation about in the first place. Continued drone bombings has only exacerbated it. So what makes anyone think even more military action will end it. As the say, the definition of insanity is to continue doing something that fails and expecting a different result.
So what do you suggest, Bud?
Hold our nose and leave. Let the people of the region sort it out. After a few years we will no longer be regarded as the infidel and perhaps, maybe we can serve as some sort of diplomatic catalyst. Not a sexy approach but given the utter failure of the killing approach it’s worth a try don’t you think?
“After a few years we will no longer be regarded as the infidel and perhaps…”
I’m sorry, but a few years of the USA going and sitting in the “time-out corner” isn’t going to work.
Yes.It worked in Vietnam
The Bush doctrine didn’t cause this..it merely made us more of a target for their evil. What do we do about it? Leave. Respond when attacked. Offer asylum to anyone who chooses to leave. Stop putting our soldiers in harm’s way. Give up on the idea that we can change cultures that have existed longer than than the United States has existed. Fix our own problems first. You can’t defeat evil with killing unless you are willing to kill them all including the children who will grow up and learn to be evil.
My fantasy solution is to airdrop millions of ipads preloaded with videos depecting the western world they’ve never seen and the opportunities that exist in a free society. Knowledge is power.
Unless the sight of this wonderful western world they supposedly haven’t seen angers them more.
“Fantasy” certainly accurately describes it.
Better than the reality of dropping bombs on people. Does anyone seriously think we can change other cultures?
I work with a large number of Indians and when they describe their culture and customs, I am left shaking my head. And these are people who are good and decent.
“Does anyone seriously think we can change other cultures?”
What part of the culture of ISIS redeeming in any way that makes it worth saving?
I’ll turn it around: Make the argument for why we shouldn’t wipe them from the face of the earth, destroy their soldiers and military, lay waste to their cities, occupy their capitals, sow salt in the earth, and then leave.
You forgot the part about the lamentations of their women. Although, based on this report, I’m guessing they wouldn’t have any women who would lament them.
I don’t know about the laying waste to their cities or salting the earth. Those are not their cities; that is not their land. The cities and land should be returned, unharmed as much as possible, to the rightful owners…
That was just my opening position. I’m leaving myself room for a counter-offer, like any good lawyer would. 🙂
I’m open to negotiating on the idea of not salting the earth and not entirely destroying the cities. Maybe.
But be careful: Don’t show weakness!
Why shouldn’t we wipe them from the face of the Earth?
a) Because we can’t. It is an impossible objective. Is there any evidence that the efforts over the past 14 years have made any progress?
b) It is not our responsibility, especially when you consider all the issues we have on our on soil.
c) Unless and until our military can target only the bad guys and not a single innocent person, we are creating the environment to continue the hatred of the U.S. and its methods.
When you and others grieve for the lives of innocent foreigners with the same intensity as soldiers lost in battle, get back to me.
Well, I’m just shocked that Doug, the limited-government guy, would drop iPads. You could save so much money by dropping Kindles, or Nooks, or one of those Google or Windows-based tablets that I can’t remember the names of.
Thank goodness Doug isn’t in charge of purchasing at the Pentagon… 🙂
I was going to say Kindles for that reason. I bet there are plenty of companies that would do it for free for the publicity. We could also have Amazon and Apple start a buy one, send one program much like some shoe companies do.
Is there any doubt that it wouldn’t HURT our efforts to bring about change in those regions? One million tablets at $200 a piece would cost less than the left engine of a bomber, probably,
WOULDN’T HURT
They want it both ways (though I suppose everyone does). Go across the Turkish border for cigarettes. Head back over to the other side to condemn the fact that you had access to cigarettes, then shoot some guys in the name of God and do donuts in your Nissan truck.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/isis-propaganda-on-twitter-turns-to-kittens-and-lolspeak-i-can-haz-islamic-state-plz-9683736.html
I am not going to blame ISIS on Bush or Obama. This extreme form of Islam was already brewing with the Taliban, and it has simply evolved. It does seem like a Hydra: cut one head off and 2 more grow–it makes it a difficult monster to kill. But this will not survive. That kind of cruelty can grow for awhile, but eventually enough people see it for what it is. The sad thing is, is that it seems to be a recurring human sickness.
This reminds me of my readings for an Honors Program history class paper in 1966 (there was no Honors College at USC back in those ancient days) . I plowed through the Congressional Record for the years leading up to the Vietnam War. The Congressional “fact-finding” missions (I think I recall that Kefauver may have led a major one) came back and reported that the fighting with the French was a nationalist rather than communist enterprise, that there was no way for the U.S. to win a ground war there, but that the Communist Menace demanded that we fight one anyway if there was a risk of Vietnam becoming Communist. This was from about 1950-1953, long before we in fact became engaged in war in Southeast Asia. And indeed the Red Menace in Southeast Asia was pretty awful at times (ISIS has nothing on Pol Pot), but if you start out knowing something won’t work . . . duh.
I’m with Bud on this – military action by the U.S. is not the answer this time either. So, What is? Military action by Arab states accompanied by an intensive de-legitimatization of the ISIS “theology” would be one option. I don’t know if that would work either, but it beats American soldiers dying in an enterprise that we already know hasn’t worked in all these years.
I guess I need to see ol’ Estes’ report, because it would surprise me that it said there was “no way for the U.S. to win a ground war there.” (I’m not doubting you; I’m just surprised that such an argument was advanced so early, and would be interested to see an elaboration on it.)
There were ways, they just weren’t attractive options within the context of the Cold War.
Also, while I’m sure nationalism was in the mix of motives for the Viet Cong et al., I do believe there was quite a bit of committed Marxism in the stew as well.
I seems like I’ve seen that “It was all about nationalism” meme credibly challenged somewhere by someone who knows a lot more about it than I do, but I’m having trouble remembering where at the moment…
I agree that there were committed communists in the stew as well, but the emphasis on nationalism was one of the comments from a Congressional fact-finding assessment in the early 1950’s – as was the comment that a ground war there wasn’t winnable. I don’t think “Ol’ Estes” himself was credited with the statements, but I believe they were in his committee’s report rather than one of the others that I read. That was probably easier to say in the early 1950’s than it was later, when it was more obvious that the U S. was getting entangled on the ground.
I don’t feel too bad about not recalling which Congressional report was most explicit on these points. My paper was written when I was about 19 years old, in about 1967, and my grasp on the full citations has slipped a little in the intervening years. As a paper-hogging academic it is even possible that my paper survives somewhere in my files, but finding it isn’t likely.
Another Vietnam perspective, more personal – my husband George got to enjoy the lovely landscape of the Mekong Delta up close and personal in 1965, all expenses paid by the U. S. government. He was working with a Sgt. Ho, and says that Ho mentioned being at Dien Bien Phu. George responded that Ho was lucky to be alive, the odds were against it. Ho’s response, smiling, was that it depended on which side you were on. At that point George understood that a lot of the Vietnamese involved in the war were just trying to keep themselves and their families alive and well in the midst of a wretched war, making bets on what choice was most likely to produce that outcome. Others were doubtless ideologically committed on one side or the other, but generally speaking those with a strong ideological commitment are usually in a minority in such circumstances.
And while I’m on that topic, I suspect the same was often true in the Civil War. However, I’ll leave that one alone for now.
The barbaric acts had their intended effect.Dropping a bomb on Hiroshima pales in comparison or something? Yes,that seems fairly anonymous. Sick,twisted things like ISIS happen everyday in America’s jails and prisons…,but you’ve seen ISIS at work.You can’t imagine the things you’ve never seen.
The Islamic treatment of sexual relations can be quite legalistic in the sense that it’s possible to have a “sanctioned” one-night stand through the feature of a temporary marriage. This is not my idea, but that of learned scholars who perhaps had an itch that needed scratching. That’s their religion, not mine. I will note that such an attitude can lead to more expansive expressions of sexual activity, and most certainly does.
But I digress.
Were one to Gurgle “How to defeat ISIS” on the InterTubes, one would find a variety of options on how to deal with the ISIS threat which one could boil down to two:
– Give them jobs.
– Kill them.
The argument I and others make is that we need to do both. The really big problem in the US and Europe, much of Asia and South America, and most of Africa is that idiotic economic policies have stifled economic growth. One may rant about rampant consumerism and the like, but the reality is that if folks do not have a way of earning a living, they feel unfulfilled and tend to search for what brings them fulfillment.
The dole — welfare — merely provides them with basic sustainment and moves them up a notch or two on Maslow’s hierarchy, which is why the West, Europe, seems to be growing more terrorists than other places are. With basic physical needs — food, shelter, clothing, a smartphone, etc. — taken care of, youngsters have the time and energy to get involved in shenanigans. And if the young impressionable males come under the influence of a guy who convinces them that infidels should be killed, well then, things don’t turn out too well. We blame this on “root causes.”
If there were jobs, this would not happen. But, there are no jobs. Britain decided to let more of these folks in more recently than the French did, which is why the French have more car fires. Every night. In the neighborhoods where these young rascals live in their subsidized apartments. As one who has owned several French automobiles — two Citroens, two Peugeots, and three Renaults — I am not unsympathetic. But these rogues are setting fire not to their own vehicles, but to those of others. As long as they are in France, their antics should be handled by the French. When / if they move elsewhere, they may become a problem to us.
Since we westerners are unable to provide employment for much of the raw materials that ISIS turns into murderers, we should focus on eliminating ISIS. The US cannot do this alone, we need to have a coalition, but the diplomatic bits the Obama administration has put into place do not portend a long-term solution.
Why? Because we’ve pulled aircraft carrier forces out of the area and are relying on Turkey and Iran to contain and control ISIS; we made a deal with the Turks to station USAF assets in Turkey. That might be a good idea were it not for the fact that it leaves the Kurds out and dooms the Yazidi: neither Turkey nor Iran cares much for the Kurds, who happen to be the only sane folks in the area and who happen to not hate the Yazidi. Our deal with the Turks certainly includes restrictions on aiding the Kurds. I’m pretty sure that the US will not extend to the Yazidi the relocation benefits we’ve granted the Somalis, but that’s another issue.
More than a couple of military strategists argue that ISIS can be eliminated within months with a concentrated effort. ISIS is till local, a murderous, sustained onslaught can eliminate them and deter recruits. Our endgame should be a cleansed Syria, a tumultuous Iraq, and a chastened Iran. We can do that by selling surplus A-10s with maintenance and armament packages to Saudi Arabia and one or two of the stable Gulf States and the Kurds, increasing our defense budget to allow the return of carrier task forces (one permanent, with a second on call) to the Gulf region, and countering Iranian influence through aid to Sunni allies.
What deters many folks is that the fight will be not just bloody, but horrific. At least one of the ISIS commanders enters battles with a naked Yazidi girl secured spread-eagle on the hood of his pickup: during a battle it may not be possible to kill him without killing her. But a moral folk cannot allow this obscenity to continue.
That really sounds like, as Burl said below, Mad Max stuff…
There’s always the chance such stories are exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
But even if partly true, these are stone-age barbarians. I think of those crazed guys in the Mad Max films.
And they have a “caliphate” with actual borders. So, Contain, Reclaim, Defund.
Contain them by pushing back on their advances. Reclaim lost territories through military action. Defund them by taking out their sources of income, both physical (oil) and in the aether (online sources).
Makes sense to me. And I like the classical spelling of “ether.” Although when I check, I see that’s apparently THE way to spell it in that sense. Something I did not know…