We are going to have to endure some gruesome back-patting from the establishment’s permanent war party, as they jump up and down and cheer wildly for having killed an unarmed man who was trying to run away.
I’m not saying that ISIS were not a horrible bunch of people; they went out of their way to establish and weaponize a reputation for brutality. As someone who was trying to restore an Ottoman-style caliphate, I can only assume that someone was going to be caliph of the mess; i.e.: Al Baghdadi was a proto-king. That puts him in the same league, as far as I am concerned, as his creator George W. Bush. But it’s hard to imagine Bush getting his hands dirty.
Elsewhere I have mentioned the issue of “kings do not kill kings” [stderr] but I suppose that has to be amended to: “but if you’re not a member of the ‘kings’ club, you are toast.” Bin Laden, who was also unceremoniously assassinated, thought that he was a leader of a credible military insurgency (for a while) and ISIS thought they were establishing a proto-state through force of arms – which is the traditional way of establishing a state.
Why do we bother with these dramatic gyrations around “regime change”? ISIS just experienced some “regime change” and nobody is going to give a shit in 3 weeks, except for Baghdadi’s successor. I keep trying to understand this: the US thinks it is OK to destabilize a country with CIA-backed insurgencies, lead a revolt, and then disintegrate the country with bombing campaigns while leaving their leadership intact? If the problem in Syria is Assad, why didn’t they just send a troop of special forces paladins to hang him out to dry? Why don’t kings kill kings?
Back in the 1900s, anarchists worldwide argued that kings and corporate leaders were the enemy, and they were fair targets. I suppose the reason that idea never grew wings and took off might have something to do with how ruthlessly they were suppressed.
Or is it fear of “tit for tat”? Personally, I’d be fine if a Russian spetznas team showed up in Texas and blew away George Bush. Or Jared or Ivanka. Or Hillary. It appears to me now that the global “regime change” industry has the entire situation backwards – instead of attacking and destabilizing entire nations and upsetting the civilians, why can’t kings just make war on kings? Just make it as bloody – and localized – as possible.