Post by Anthony Coppola
Al-Qaeda pulled off the single worst terrorist attack on 9/11, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people on that fateful day. So, what does the “jv team,” as President Barack Obama once called ISIS, have on the historically nasty, merciless, notorious al-Qaeda?
For one, ISIS is a loose cannon, a disorganized “group.” At least al-Qaeda was more like a state, an organized group. Now, some may wonder how exactly ISIS’ disorganization is an advantage. Well, for one, we cannot contain them; we cannot identify them as a sole entity. This lowers our security levels substantially with the various and often “lone wolf” attacks, as opposed to one major splash such as what occurred on 9/11.
Take, as a reference, the countless number of “small” attacks within the United States and the world as a whole executed by the so-called members of ISIS. Kurth Cronin writes about this in “ISIS is more than a Terrorist Group”: “In fact, many of the so-called ISIS attacks have no direct logistical links to the group and are mainly inspired by propaganda and online sources.” So, ISIS, while the group may or may not have any direct links to these minor attacks, has an undeniable influence capable of inspiring small terror cells around the world. Cronin adds that “Al Qaeda kept tighter control of those it allowed to claim its brand.” ISIS has claimed responsibility, with pride, for the countless number of heinous acts committed by deranged individuals--and it is important to note that many of these people who commit these acts of terror often pledge allegiance to ISIS. Yet, why is it that most of these people are entirely unaffiliated with the terror group? With ISIS, we fight influence and an ideology instead of an organized group such as a 2001 al-Qaeda.
Now, if ISIS is so disorganized, and al-Qaeda of the past was organized, how can the latter not be stronger? They did kill nearly 3,000 on 9/11. It seems fair to say that al-Qaeda posed more of a threat to the United States than ISIS has. After all, al-Qaeda, in addition to 9/11, managed to bomb the WTC in 1993, and succeeded in a series of attacks around the globe where United States troops were involved and killed. ISIS has not attacked the United States yet, directly. It can be argued that they are less preoccupied with the United States and more concerned with establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East.
Sure, ISIS may be “lighter” on the United States than al-Qaeda ever was--but what about global security? The United States among dozens of powerful nations have interests in the Middle East, therefore making ISIS a serious issue for not only the United States, but the whole world. It would seem that the Middle East is sort of a “catalyst” for a global war, where ISIS wants to allure superpowers into fighting them. And all it takes for that war, like with al-Qaeda, is another 9/11, and we repeat the cycle again. So, what we have here with ISIS is a terror group with influence and the capabilities of major terror attacks in addition to the small ones that take place regularly.
But, of course, it could be said that ISIS is instead organized, given that they have 30,000 fighters collectively capable of claiming territory and fighting armies. Cronin writes that al-Qaeda “never attracted 1,000 foreign fighters a month, including women and children, or forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee its occupied territory.”
Graeme Wood in “What ISIS Really Wants” for The Guardian even writes that ISIS “rules an area larger than the United Kingdom.”
ISIS is both organized and disorganized, a lethal combination--they have a number fit for an army in addition to an influence capable of sparking spontaneous home-grown attacks. ISIS is a threat that has yet to reach its potential if serious action is not made against the group. Because it seems, for some people, that ISIS must commit a second 9/11 in order for them to be “worse” than their “Varsity” counterpart, al-Qaeda.
