A new report from the Centre on Religion and Geopolitics, a think tank that is part of the “Tony Blair Faith Foundation,” is warning that the military defeat of ISIS, while nominally desirable in and of itself, will do materially nothing to stop the Islamist takeover of the region.
The report says a third of the rebel factions, representing roughly 60% of rebel fighters, are ideologically similar to ISIS, and that 15 different rebel factions would eagerly step in and fill the vacuum if ISIS was defeated militarily.
Exactly how broadly they define “ideologically similar” is unclear, but the report appears to focus on Salafist movements, which would include several major rebel factions, including al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra and the Saudi-backed Ahrar al-Sham.
Ironically, at times a lot of these Salafist groups have been presented by Western officials as “moderates,” and as the allies who could be used to defeat ISIS. While that may be technically true, the think tank warns the defeat of ISIS doesn’t really end anything, but simply props up another, ideologically compatible faction in their place.
7 thoughts on “Think Tank: Most Syrian Rebel Groups Ideologically Similar to ISIS”
Good thing Russia hasn't made or doesn't make some non-existent distinction between terrorists.
Sure do hope they know about them "fun sized" turrrrists.
Good, in particular, for Ukraine. By fighting "all comers" Putin has alienated all of them and is ensuring that, whoever wins in Syria, he will lose. If Assad survives, Putin will be bogged down indefinitely trying to prop him up against "all comers". I've said it before: the little policeman has absolutely no political savvy!
Putin is not fighting all comers. That is the US side. Putin has half. The US has nobody but its fantasy of moderates.
This in not really news, even to poor old Tony. All Islamic groups have the same goal: the disappearance of Israel. Thus, the difference between those who want to see Israel disappear "moderately" and those wjho want to see it disappear "extremely" is not very important other than as a criterion for forming alliances. It's the same conundrum as WWII: ally with nasty Stalin against nasty Hitler or vice versa. Both can't be defeated at the same time. And, of course, insurgencies can never be "defeated". They have to be given the essential of what they want. Look at Northern Ireland. Britain spent 30 years "refusing to deal with terrorists" and ended up having to give them everything they wanted except formal sovereignty (which they didn't want immediately anyway) and allow a former IRA commander to become "Her majesty's Deputy First Minister" of NI. Thus, the idea that if you claim to have "defeated" this or that group, another will simply step into its place is perfectly obvious.
Is there any indication that IS is actively interested in israel? Aside from running into israel for medical care of course.
"these Salafist groups have been presented by Western officials as “moderates,” "
because that fantasy is necessary to Western policy. Otherwise, they've got nobody on the ground there, and Assad is the only one fighting our enemies ISIS and al Qaeda.
In fact, some of our neocons and liberal hawks have already gone the next step, and advocated support for al Qaeda (again).
Comments are closed.