U.S. Strategy Against ISIS, the Caliphate, and Dabiq

After listening to the short speech by President Obama last Sunday, the general consensus among those of us not inclined to list this President as a global strategic savant dismissed the speech as more of the same: all talk and redundancy. It certainly did not offer any rational effort to assuage fear in the American populace, nor did it offer any new methodology for combating ISIS, or ISIL, a term for the Islamic State this administration, for some reason has wedded itself to. In actuality, it was more along the lines of a lecture to the American people to be nice to the Muslims among us. This was unnecessary as we have yet to vent our anger or frustration on our Muslim neighbors.

The President did emphasize again that large numbers of boots on the ground, specifically American boots, is not the answer. This is especially interesting since the very basis for the Islamic State is that they must hold ground. Their claim as the rightful heir as a caliphate is based on having a landmass. Without land, they are no better than al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, or the other terror groups that play a murderous game of hide-and-seek with established government militaries. Without territory they cannot issue a jihadist call for Muslims worldwide to come to the Islamic State. They cannot demand jihad against infidels worldwide or obeisance of all Muslims to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-appointed Caliph of the Islamic State. It therefore would seem logical to eliminate the land holdings. So, why don’t we do just that?

Interestingly, the New York Times (full article here) brought up the Islamic apocryphal teachings regarding the jihadist desire for the great battle to commence. I have no idea whether or not the White House prompted the article to give a basis for President Obama’s grand strategy, or whether ISIS uses the Qu’ranic teaching as another type of threat that the situation can only get worse if foreign troops enter the fray, or the Times simply just printed the story.  For ISIS, they embellish the threat.  Peter Kassig, a former US Army Ranger, was beheaded in Dabiq, the prophetic site of Islam’s version of Armageddon, with the statement by the executioner, “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive.”

Dabiq is a small town in Syria near Aleppo, the Koran-assigned site of the great battle between crusader forces (that’s us) and the followers of Islam. Dabiq is also the name of the magazine of ISIS. I have linked the first issue of it here if you are interested in reading the well-written and professionally published propaganda of these thugs. Dabiq equates the Caliphate’s operations to Qu’ranic teachings and offers a religious affirmation for their recruitment of soldiers worldwide.

It now comes down to this. Do we allow the American and other western populations to be held hostage to the Islamic end-time prophecy by continuing to absorb the terrorist blows of ISIS, or do we destroy them by any means necessary? Do we believe their version of a great Islamic victory over the crusaders at Dabiq, or do we follow the Christian faith that has offered hope, peace, and salvation through Biblical teachings that has sustained western democracies for 2,000 years? We have no reason to fear Dabiq.