《ISIS: 恐怖軍隊內部》(ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror)是由記者邁克爾·韋斯(Michael Weiss)與哈桑·哈桑(Hassan Hassan)所著,該書建立在兩位記者範圍廣泛的新聞報道之上,其中包括對ISIS在伊拉克與敘利亞的幾十名合作者的訪談,這些人當中有宗教人士、戰士、安保官員和ISIS的同情者。這本書堪稱一幅邏輯嚴密的全景,令讀者看到這個組織是如何在各式各樣的前身(包括伊拉克基地組織、聖戰者協商委員會和伊拉克伊斯蘭國)基礎之上發展起來,以及它在今日如何運作。
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
左起依次為,邁克爾·韋斯,哈桑·哈桑,傑西卡·斯特恩,J·M·伯格。
Left to right: Sylvain Gaboury/Starpix; Dahlia Shami; Richard Howard; Janet Walsh
《ISIS:恐怖之國》(ISIS: The State of Terror)是由哈佛大學專門研究恐怖主義的學者傑西卡·斯特恩(Jessica Stern)與《外交政策》(Foreign Policy)雜誌撰稿人J·M·伯格(J. M. Berger)合著,它與上一本書的基礎大致相同,但細節並不那麼豐富。對於西方世界的對策,這本書的兩位作者也給出了一些大致的建議:應當致力於「牽制與遏制」,而非投入壓倒性的軍事力量,並且要在數碼領域進行更有效的控制(「我們如果有了控制互聯網的力量,就等於有了在戰爭中控制天氣的力量」)。
他們寫道,基地組織將恢復伊斯蘭王權視為「一項一板一眼的長期工程」——「是一個理想化的未來,基地組織的領導者們並不指望自己有生之年能夠親眼見到」。作者認為,通過使用「典型的極端主義修辭」(保衛一個人自身所屬的群體不受侵犯),奧薩馬·本·拉登(Osama bin Laden)的組織「用『做正確的事』之類與人們更加切身相關的詞語,為招募潛在新人奠定了基調」。
盟軍的佔領與戰後計劃同樣是災難性的。兩本書都提醒我們,2003年,美國駐伊拉克最高民事長官L·保羅·布雷默三世(L. Paul Bremer III)所做的一系列決定——解散伊拉克軍隊,禁止阿拉伯社會復興党進入政府——導致憤怒、失業的伊拉克人迅速增長,他們特別容易被吸納到新興的叛亂組織中去,人心惶惶,缺乏安全感。事實上,韋斯和哈桑主張,大多數伊斯蘭國的「頂尖決策者都曾在薩達姆·侯賽因(Saddam Hussein)的軍隊或保安系統中服役,」因此,「『現世的』阿拉伯社會復興主義在伊斯蘭原教旨主義的偽裝下再度回到了伊拉克。」
Review: ‘ISIS: The State of Terror,’ by Jessica Stern and J. M. Berger, and ‘ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror,’ by Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan
Books of The TimesByMICHIKO KAKUTANIApril 16, 2015
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
Alessandra Montalto/The New York Times
The Islamic State and its atrocities — beheadings, mass executions, the enslavement of women and children, and the destruction of cultural antiquities — are in the headlines every day now. The terror group not only continues to roll through the Middle East, expanding from Iraq and Syria into Libya and Yemen, but has also gained dangerous new affiliates in Egypt and Nigeria and continues to recruit foreign fighters through its sophisticated use of social media.
Given the ascendance of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), it’s startling to recall that in January 2014, President Obama referred to it as a “J.V. team,” suggesting that it did not pose anywhere near the sort of threat that Al Qaeda did.
Since then, yards of copy and scores of pixels have been devoted to trying to chronicle and comprehend the group. Two new books pull together and analyze a lot of material on it. Although much of their coverage (on matters like the organization’s use of social media, its fueling of sectarian hatred and its combination of ultraviolence with civil governance) will be familiar to those who follow the news, the authors do nimble jobs of turning their copious research and their own expertise on terrorism into coherent, accessible narratives that leave us with an understanding of the Islamic State’s history and metastasis, and its modus operandi.
“ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror” by the journalists Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan, draws upon the authors’ extensive reporting — including interviews with dozens of ISIS associates in Iraq and Syria, among them religious clerics, fighters, security officials and sympathizers — to give readers a fine-grained look at the organization’s evolution through assorted incarnations (Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahidin Advisory Council and the Islamic State of Iraq) and its operations today.
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
From left, Michael Weiss, Hassan Hassan, Jessica Stern and J. M. Berger.
Left to right: Sylvain Gaboury/Starpix; Dahlia Shami; Richard Howard; Janet Walsh
“ISIS: The State of Terror” by the Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern and J. M. Berger, a contributor to Foreign Policy magazine, covers much of the same ground but with less granular detail. The authors also offer some vague recommendations on how they think the West should deal with the Islamic State: focus on “containment and constriction” rather than overwhelming military force, and exert more effective control of the digital battleground. (“Our power over the Internet is the equivalent of being able to control the weather in a ground war.”)
The most compelling sections of the Stern-Berger book are devoted to comparing ISIS and Al Qaeda. The authors describe Al Qaeda as an exclusive “vanguard movement,” a “cabal that saw itself as the elite intellectual leaders of a global ideological revolution that it would assist and manipulate.” Through the 1990s, they write, Al Qaeda “grew into a corporation, with a payroll and benefits department, and operatives who traveled around the world inserting themselves into local conflicts.”
ISIS, in contrast, is more of a populist start-up operation. Online, Ms. Stern and Mr. Berger note, “it amassed and empowered a ‘smart mob’ of supporters,” polling “its constituents and making shrewd calls about when to listen and who could safely be ignored.”
Al Qaeda’s vision for the restoration of the Islamic caliphate, they write, “is framed squarely in the long term” — “an idealized future that its leaders did not expect to see realized in their lifetimes.” Using “a classic extremist trope” (the defense of one’s own identity group against aggression), the authors assert, Osama bin Laden’s organization “framed its pitch to potential recruits in more relatable terms as ‘doing the right thing.’ ”
The Islamic State, Mr. Berger and Ms. Stern say, dispensed with such intellectual argumentation and instead emphasized horrific violence (which served to stimulate and attract disaffected, angry young men) combined with the promise of a building “a Muslim society with all the trappings.” This utopian vision of “food aplenty, industry, banks, schools, health care, social services, pothole repair — even a nursing home with the insurgents’ unmistakable black flag draped over the walls,” they write, served as “a call for noncombatants, men and women alike, to build a nation-state alongside the warriors, with a role for engineers, doctors, filmmakers, sysadmins, and even traffic cops.”
Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hassan describe the Islamic State not only as a terrorist organization but also as “a slick propaganda machine effective at disseminating its message,” “a mafia adept at exploiting decades-old transnational gray markets for oil and arms trafficking,” a “conventional military that mobilizes and deploys foot soldiers” with professional acumen, and a “sophisticated intelligence-gathering apparatus that infiltrates rival organizations and silently recruits within their ranks before taking them over.”
As Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hassan see it, many reluctant supporters regard the Islamic State as “the only option on offer for Sunni Muslims who have been dealt a dismal hand in the past decade — first losing control of Iraq and now suffering nationwide atrocities, which many equate to genocide, in Syria. They view the struggle in the Middle East as one between Sunnis and an Iranian-led coalition, and they justify ultraviolence as a necessary tool to counterbalance or deter Shia hegemony.” The Islamic State has viciously exploited this sense of sectarian grievance, trying to fan the flames of civil war and incite Shia militias to violence — which the group could then hold up as proof to Sunnis that they “have no hope but the caliphate.”
These books note that in Iraq the sectarianism of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (a polarizing figure who as prime minister increasingly moved to disenfranchise Sunnis and purge prominent Sunni leaders from the government) served only to push more Sunnis into the embrace of the Islamic State.
Both books also provide lucid assessments of the role that missteps and disastrous decision-making on the part of the United States played in fueling the rise of the Islamic State and its antecedents and affiliates. Ms. Stern and Mr. Berger write that the 2003 invasion of Iraq “reinforced jihadi claims about America’s hegemonic designs on the Middle East, providing a recruiting bonanza at a time when the terrorists needed it most.” They add that “while some politicians wanted to see Iraq during the allied invasion as a roach motel, we see it more like a hornet’s nest — with allied bombs and bullets spreading the hornets ever further, throughout the region and beyond.”
The occupation and postwar planning would prove equally disastrous. Both books remind us that decisions announced by L. Paul Bremer III, the top American civilian administrator in Iraq, in 2003 — to dissolve the Iraqi Army and to ban Baath Party members from government — resulted in huge numbers of angry, unemployed Iraqis, easily recruited into a burgeoning insurgency and a dangerous lack of security. In fact, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hassan contend that most of the Islamic State’s “top decision makers served in Saddam Hussein’s military or security services,” and in that sense, “ ‘secular’ Baathism has returned to Iraq under the guise of Islamic fundamentalism.”
Finally, both books point out that the United States’ withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011 and the Obama administration’s political disengagement have had lasting consequences for what Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hassan call “the country’s future instability.”
“The rise of ISIS,” Mr. Berger and Ms. Stern conclude, “is to some extent, the unintended consequence of Western intervention in Iraq. Coalition forces removed a brutal dictator from power, but they also broke the Iraqi state. The West lacked the patience, the will, and the wisdom to build a new, inclusive one. What remained were ruins.” They quote King Abdullah II of Jordan saying that the battle with ISIS will be a “generational fight.”
Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hassan sound an even more pessimistic note. “The army of terror,” they write at the end of their book, “will be with us indefinitely.”