Yes, I’ve already read that article. It states your thesis, but what it describes is how rich warlords determined to snatch power in a destroyed society have used religion as a veil cast over all decisions and edicts in order to give them an air of legitimacy. It’s been done since Constantine and before, most recently to some extent by the US when invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, you could argue it’s what religion is. It’s the justification, not the reason.
From the article:
Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government.
Because it’s not about religion, it’s about control.
Ultimately those in power are acting because they have a whole lot of oil money but no caliphate to show for it, and they’re taking advantage of the opportunity we’ve given them to create one. The people under them are acting because Daesh got the plumbing working, got the traffic flowing, and more than anything else, because they pay a wage. They’d have taken western democracy, if we could have supplied it, but the sad shameful truth is that Daesh are doing a better job of bringing order and stability to ordinary people trying to feed their families than we ever did.
Islam, with it’s harsh Sharia law, evolved for a reason, because it was a step better than what came before. We’ve taken them back to that step. But if you put it into a modern context, Islam isn’t a problem because Islam never was the problem. Muslim people I know are ample evidence of that.
I think that by arguing that this is an ideological war you prevent the essential critical analysis of the basic practical motivations that could be more readily addressed as a means to resolving the conflict. We will never eradicate Islam, but if we could have at least kept the water running in Iraq we might not be where we are now.
