Some Israeli officers think that America's emphasis on defeating the ISIL caliphate is counter-productive?
Sure, if America thinks the defeat of ISIL is the end of the war against jihadis begun after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks by al Qaeda.
But why is focusing on the one group of jihadis with a proto-state counter-productive?
Is Israel really enjoying the jihadi proto-states of Hamas-run Gaza and Hezbollah-run southern Lebanon?
Is Israel really enjoying the mullah-run Shia jihadi state of Iran that has nuclear weapons within its reach?
Is scattering jihadis so they are more of an intelligence and police power really counter-productive?
Hell, if so, maybe Israel should reconsider their very existence as a state that gathers Jews into one territory. Maybe Israel would be stronger and harder to defeat if Jews were scattered in separate countries across the globe.
Yeah, the notion sounds stupid when you put it that way.
(Although if Iran gets nukes, the advice might be better. Might the Israeli settler movement reconsider their role in that environment?)
Crush ISIL. Jihadi sanctuaries are bad. And then continue the war.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
