'ISIL' and Defeatist Psychology
It is fashionable these days to say, “ISIL or ISIS, take your pick,” when referring to the hellish jihadists swarming in Iraq. But the terms are not synonymous. One could argue the legitimacy of the term ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), inasmuch as two countries bear those names. However, ISIL (Islamic State of the Levant) does not refer to any modern nation-state at all. It is a fiction.
Levant may make somebody with a PhD in the State Department feel important. The academic resonance of the term may make Harvard types in the Obama administration feel their world history chops. But Levant is an aggregative term used mostly by scholars to lump together millemnia of cultures and civilizations in the Middle East near the Mediterranean. The term has no more contemporary legitimacy than say, jihadists renaming the USA the ISAIT, the Islamic State in American and Indian Territories.
Use of the term Levant is in the tradition of John Kerry’s reference to “Jenjiss” Khan to describe his fellow soldiers -- but more subtle than that grotesque objurgation. The psychology of defeating enemies involves clearly identifying them and isolating them from other groups. The term "Levant" does the opposite. It obfuscates the identity and empowers the Islamic warriors in the current crisis. It associates the jihadist warriors with a vast pre-Islamic history and a large piece of land they do not hold. In effect, use of the term ISIL psychologically cedes that geography to the enemy.
In the current world crisis the operant distinction is not between moderate and radical Muslims, but between militarized and non-militarized Muslims. All Islamic people follow the same scripture, which sanctifies warfare. Whether Muslims are militarized or non-militarized has to do with how they choose to enact their scripture. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, also upholds the righteousness of war to defend one’s country. But notwithstanding the rewriting of history regarding the so-called Crusades, Christians have never used military conquest to spread their religion. Any comparison between Christianity and Islam regarding military conquest is absurd.
ISIL is a psychologically defeatist term because it associates an extremely militarized group of barbaric Islamists in a narrow theater of war with great military powers that held sway over the world before the modern state existed. Regarding the current crisis in Syria and Iraq, the peoples of those nation states are going to have to choose if they are willing to live under the rule of frenzied cruelty in the name of religion. The people of the United States are going to have to decide if, and then how, to help them.
Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Trump’s Incredibly High Stakes
- It’s Not Too Late to Boot Biden
- The Sinking of the USS Agility
- Culture and the Perils of Ideology
- Is Rachel Maddow Just Plain Stupid?
- Is Artificial Intelligence Behind Our Unexplained Digital Encounters?
- The Necessity of Heroes
- The Demise of the Mainstream Media
- Lessons From Germany's Economic Contraction
- The X-Men vs the Swamp Creatures
Blog Posts
- Can California's fires change woke to MAGA?
- A few suggestions for California Republicans
- Maybe California politicians should listen to Trump instead of seeking to Trump-proof the state
- As Los Angeles burns
- Biden’s good news and bad news
- British government horrified at Elon Musk’s language, O.K. with the gang rape of young girls
- The man who spotted Castro
- The center of our belief
- Statehood for Canada is not a great idea
- Minneapolis helps Biden sabotage Minneapolis
- More veiled threats against those asking the government what it really knew about the migrant rape gangs
- Joe Biden reveals that he warned Trump not to use the government to settle political scores
- Biden’s terror hypocrisy
- What was different this time?
- Leftists scatter: How to frame the incoming Trump admin?