Absolutely the very best post on this issue ever! It's all I can say as this
was so well stated!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:33 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] A Civil War Story About ISIS Might Spark a Peace
Movement
A Civil War Story About ISIS Might Spark a Peace Movement
Tuesday, 02 February 2016 00:00 By Ira Chernus, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
Iraqi soldiers assigned to the 71st Iraqi Army Brigade move closer to an
objective during a simulated exercise under fire at Camp Taji, Iraq,
November 18, 2015. This training is in support of Combined Joint Task Force
- Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition of 60-plus nations that have
joined together against ISIS. (Photo: Spc. William Marlow / US Army)
It was half a century ago, but I still remember it vividly. "We have to help
South Vietnam," I explained. "It's a sovereign nation being invaded by
another nation, North Vietnam."
"No, no," my friend protested. "There's just one Vietnam, from north to
south, divided artificially. It's a civil war. And we have no business
getting involved. We're just making things worse for everyone."
At the time, I hadn't heard anyone describe the Vietnam War that way.
Looking back, I see it as my first lesson in a basic truth of political life
- that politics is always a contest between competing narratives. Accept a
different story and you're going to see the issue differently, which might
leave you open to supporting a very different policy. Those who control the
narrative, that is, are likely to control what's done, which is why
governments so regularly muster their resources - call it propaganda or call
it something else - to keep that story in their possession.
Right now, as Americans keep a wary eye on the Islamic State (IS), there are
only two competing stories out there about the devolving situation in the
Middle East: think of them as the mission-creep and the make-the-desert-glow
stories. The Obama administration suggests that we have to "defend" America
by gradually ratcheting up our efforts, from air strikes to advisers to
special operations raids against the Islamic State. Administration critics,
especially the Republican candidates for president, urge us to "defend"
ourselves by bombing IS to smithereens, sending in sizeable contingents of
American troops, and rapidly upping the military ante. Despite the fact that
the Obama administration and Congress continue to dance around the word
"war," both versions are obviously war stories. There's no genuine peace
story in sight.
To be sure, peace activists have been busy poking holes in the two war
narratives. It's not hard. As they point out, U.S. military action against
IS is obviously self-defeating. It clearly gives the Islamic State exactly
what it wants. For all its fantasies of an apocalyptic final battle with
unbelievers, that movement is not in any normal sense either planning to
attack the United States or capable of doing so. Its practical, real-world
goal is to win over more Muslims to its side everywhere. Few things serve
that purpose better than American strikes on Muslims in the Middle East.
If IS launches occasional attacks in Europe and tries to inspire them here
in the U.S., it's mainly to provoke retaliation. It wants to be Washington's
constant target, which gives it cachet, elevating its struggle. Every time
we take the bait, we hand the Islamic State another victory, helping it grow
and launch new "franchises" in other predominantly Muslim nations.
That's a reasonable analysis, which effectively debunks the justifications
for more war. It's never enough, however, just to show that the prevailing
narrative doesn't fit the facts. If you want to change policy, you need a
new story, one that fits the facts far better because it's built on a new
premise.
For centuries, scientists found all sorts of flaws in the old notion that
the sun revolves around the Earth, but it held sway until Copernicus came up
with a brand-new one. The same holds true in politics. What's needed is not
just a negative narrative that says, "Here's why your ideas and actions are
wrong," but a positive one that fits the facts better. Because it's built on
a new premise, it can point to new ways to act in the world, and so rally an
effective movement to demand change.
At their best, peace movements in the past always went beyond critique to
offer stories that described conflicts in genuinely new ways. At present,
however, the U.S. peace movement has yet to find the alternative narrative
it needs to talk about the Islamic State, which leaves it little more than a
silent shadow on the American political scene.
Vietnam Redux
That's not to say that the peace movement is stuck story-less. One
potentially effective narrative that might bring it back to life is sitting
in plain view, right there in the peace activists' most common critique of
the U.S. war against the Islamic State.
IS is not making war on the U.S., the critique explains, nor on Europe. Its
sporadic attacks on those "infidel" lands aim primarily to radicalize
Muslims living there in hopes of recruiting them. Indeed, all IS strategies
are geared toward winning Muslims to its side and gaining more traction in
predominantly Muslim lands. That's where the vast majority of IS-directed or
inspired violence happens, all over what Muslims call dar al-Islam, "the
home of Islam," from Nigeria to Syria to Indonesia.
The problem for the Islamic State: the vast majority of Muslims are just not
buying its story. In fact, IS is making enemies as well as friends
everywhere it goes. In other words, it is involved in a civil war within dar
al-Islam.
Every step we take deeper into that civil war is a misstep that only makes
us more vulnerable. The stronger our stand against the Islamic State, the
more excuses and incentives we give it to try to attack us, and the easier
it is for IS to recruit fighters to do the job. The best way to protect
American lives is to transcend our fears and refuse to take sides in someone
else's civil war.
That's the positive narrative waiting to be extracted from the peace
movement's analysis. One big reason the movement has had such a paltry
influence in these years: it's never spelled out this "Muslim civil war"
narrative explicitly, even though it fits the facts so much better than
either of the war stories on offer. It radically shifts our perception of
the situation by denying the basic premise of the dominant narrative - that
IS is making war on America so we must make war in return. It points to a
new policy of disengagement.
And it's a simple, powerful story for Americans because it's so familiar. It
sends us back half a century and half a world away - to Vietnam. At that
time, my friend and (a bit later) I, too, embraced the narrative that
Vietnam was indeed gripped by a civil war. That explanation would play a
major role in boosting the success of the Sixties peace movement. Within a
few years, many millions of Americans, citizens and soldiers alike, saw the
conflict that way - and not so many years after, all U.S. troops were gone
from Vietnam.
The peace movement's story then was both simple and accurate. No, it said,
we're not the good guys protecting one independent nation from invasion by
another nation. Nor are we fighting an enemy intent on doing us harm. Boxing
champion Muhammad Ali got it right when he said: "I ain't got no quarrel
with the Viet Cong."
Intervening in Vietnam's civil war cost us more than 58,000 American lives
and did untold damage to the vets who survived, not to speak of what it did
to millions of Vietnamese. It showed us that, no matter how superior our
technology, we could not swoop in and win someone else's civil war. Our
intervention was bound to do more harm than good.
Fifty years later, we are repeating the same self-defeating mistake.
Military action against the Islamic State is leading us into another
Vietnam-like "quagmire," this time in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere across the
Greater Middle East. Once again, we have enmeshed ourselves in a complex
civil war abroad with no strategy that can lead to victory. It was wrong
then. It's wrong now.
To put it mildly, the U.S. has a less than stellar track record when it
comes to intervening in other people's civil wars. We've also interfered
quite selectively. In the last two decades, we stayed out of brutal
conflicts in places like the Congo and Sri Lanka. So a decision not to
intervene militarily in a foreign civil war should be familiar enough to
Americans.
To become neutral is not to condone the grim brutality and reactionary
values of the Islamic State. It's hardly likely that twenty-first-century
peace activists will give the IS anything like the sympathy many Vietnam-era
protesters offered the insurgents of that moment. In this case, becoming
neutral merely means suggesting that it's not Washington's job to fight evil
everywhere. Its job is to adopt the strategies most likely to keep Americans
safe.
That's a view most Americans already hold to quite firmly. So the "Muslim
civil war" story just might get a sympathetic hearing in the public arena.
The Bewildering Maze of Muslim Civil War
Of course, the Islamic State is not involved in what we conventionally think
of as a civil war, in which two sides fight for control of a single nation.
Even inside Syria, the number of factions involved in the struggle,
including the oppressive government of Bashar al-Assad and rebels of every
stripe from al-Qaeda-linked to Saudi-linked to U.S.-linked ones, is
bewildering. Since IS is fighting for control not just of Syria but of all
dar al-Islam, many other movements, factions, and forces are involved in
this Muslim civil war as well.
Some observers are too quick to simplify it into a battle of
"traditionalists versus modernizers." In the U.S. mainstream media that
usually translates into a desire for us to intervene on behalf of the
modernizers. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is probably the
best-known advocate of this view. Others simplify it into a battle between
Sunnis and Shi'ites. Since Iran is the leading Shi'ite power, those in the
media tend to favor the Sunnis.
All these simple pictures are painted to build support for one side or
another. The only kind of peace they aim at is one that leaves their favored
side victorious.
In fact, no simple dichotomy can capture the tangled maze of struggles in
dar al-Islam. Sunni traditionalists battle other Sunni traditionalists (for
example, al-Qaeda versus IS). Modernizers join traditionalists to fight
other traditionalists (for example, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in an uneasy
alliance to weaken IS). Sunnis and Shi'ites become allies too (for example,
Kurdish Sunnis and Iraqi Shi'ite militias allied against IS). The U.S.
supports both Shi'ites (like the government of Iraq) and Sunnis (like the
oil-rich Gulf States), while it resists the growing power of both Shi'ites
(like Iran) and Sunnis (like IS).
By emphasizing the true complexity of the Muslim civil war, a peace movement
narrative can cast that war in a different light. Precisely because there
are not two clearly demarcated sides, it makes no sense to cast one side as
the good guys and launch our planes and drones to obliterate the bad guys.
It's bound to lead to incoherence and disaster, especially in this
situation, where the Islamic State, however repugnant to most Americans, is
arguably no worse than our staunch allies, the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Given the confusing, some might say chaotic, maze of intra-Muslim conflict,
it is equally senseless to go on promoting the American fantasy of imposing
order. ("Without order," Friedman has written, "nothing good can happen.")
Taking this road so far has, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, actually
meant unleashing chaos in significant parts of the Greater Middle East.
There's no reason to think the same road will lead anywhere else in the
future.
Bring the Boys, Girls and Drones Home
The Muslim civil war story leads directly to a radical change in policy:
stop trying to impose a made-in-America order on dar al-Islam. Give up the
dubious gratification of yet another war against "the evildoers." Instead,
offer genuinely humanitarian aid, with no hidden political agenda, to the
victims of the civil war, especially those fleeing a stunning level of
violence in Syria that the U.S. has helped to sustain. But cease all
military action, all economic pressures, and all diplomatic maneuvering
against any one side in the Muslim civil war. Become, as we have in other
civil wars, a genuine neutral.
To call this change of narrative and policy a tall order is an
understatement. There would be massive forces arrayed against it, given the
steady stream of verbal assaults the Islamic State levels against
Washington, which have already inspired one terrible mass killing on
American soil. We don't know when, or if, other attacks will succeed in the
future, whether organized by IS or carried out by "lone wolves" energized by
that outfit.
The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that none of this is
evidence of a war directed against America. It's mainly tactical maneuvering
in a Muslim civil war. For the Islamic State, American lives and fears are
merely pawns in the game. And yet this reality in the Middle East runs
against something lodged deep in our history. For centuries, most Americans
have believed that our nation is the center of world history, that whatever
happens anywhere must somehow be aimed directly at us - and we continue to
see ourselves as the star of the global show.
Most Americans have also been conditioned for decades to believe that what's
at stake is a life-or-death drama in which some enemy, somewhere, is always
intent on destroying our nation. IS is at present the only candidate in
sight for that role and it's hard to imagine the public giving up the firmly
entrenched story that it is out to destroy us. But half a century ago, it
was difficult to imagine that the story of Vietnam would be just as
radically transformed within a few years. So it's a stretch, but not an
inconceivable one, to picture America, a few years from now, ringing with
cries that echo those of the Vietnam era: "U.S. out of dar al-Islam." "Bring
the boys - and girls and bombers and drones - home."
And if anyone says the analogy between Vietnam and the current conflict is
debatable, that's just the point. Rather than a rush to yet more war, it's
time to have a real national debate on the subject. It's time to give the
American people a chance to choose between two fundamentally different
narratives. The task of the peace movement, now as always, is to provide a
genuine alternative.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the
latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
IRA CHERNUS
Ira Chernus is a professor of religious studies at the University of
Colorado and author of MythicAmerica: Essays. He blogs at mythicamerica.us,
hosted by History News Network.
RELATED STORIES
ISIS War Needs to Be Debated in Congress and the UN Security Council
By Mark Weisbrot, The Hill | News Analysis
ISIS in Washington: The United States' Soundtrack of Hysteria
By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
ISIS Wants to Destroy the "Gray Zone"; Here's How We Defend It
By Nafeez Ahmed, openDemocracy | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
A Civil War Story About ISIS Might Spark a Peace Movement
Tuesday, 02 February 2016 00:00 By Ira Chernus, TomDispatch | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Iraqi soldiers assigned to the 71st Iraqi Army Brigade move closer
to an objective during a simulated exercise under fire at Camp Taji, Iraq,
November 18, 2015. This training is in support of Combined Joint Task Force
- Operation Inherent Resolve, a coalition of 60-plus nations that have
joined together against ISIS. (Photo: Spc. William Marlow / US Army)
. It was half a century ago, but I still remember it vividly. "We have
to help South Vietnam," I explained. "It's a sovereign nation being invaded
by another nation, North Vietnam."
"No, no," my friend protested. "There's just one Vietnam, from north to
south, divided artificially. It's a civil war. And we have no business
getting involved. We're just making things worse for everyone."
At the time, I hadn't heard anyone describe the Vietnam War that way.
Looking back, I see it as my first lesson in a basic truth of political life
- that politics is always a contest between competing narratives. Accept a
different story and you're going to see the issue differently, which might
leave you open to supporting a very different policy. Those who control the
narrative, that is, are likely to control what's done, which is why
governments so regularly muster their resources - call it propaganda or call
it something else - to keep that story in their possession.
Right now, as Americans keep a wary eye on the Islamic State (IS), there are
only two competing stories out there about the devolving situation in the
Middle East: think of them as the mission-creep and the make-the-desert-glow
stories. The Obama administration suggests that we have to "defend" America
by gradually ratcheting up our efforts, from air strikes to advisers to
special operations raids against the Islamic State. Administration critics,
especially the Republican candidates for president, urge us to "defend"
ourselves by bombing IS to smithereens, sending in sizeable contingents of
American troops, and rapidly upping the military ante. Despite the fact that
the Obama administration and Congress continue to dance around the word
"war," both versions are obviously war stories. There's no genuine peace
story in sight.
To be sure, peace activists have been busy poking holes in the two war
narratives. It's not hard. As they point out, U.S. military action against
IS is obviously self-defeating. It clearly gives the Islamic State exactly
what it wants. For all its fantasies of an apocalyptic final battle with
unbelievers, that movement is not in any normal sense either planning to
attack the United States or capable of doing so. Its practical, real-world
goal is to win over more Muslims to its side everywhere. Few things serve
that purpose better than American strikes on Muslims in the Middle East.
If IS launches occasional attacks in Europe and tries to inspire them here
in the U.S., it's mainly to provoke retaliation. It wants to be Washington's
constant target, which gives it cachet, elevating its struggle. Every time
we take the bait, we hand the Islamic State another victory, helping it grow
and launch new "franchises" in other predominantly Muslim nations.
That's a reasonable analysis, which effectively debunks the justifications
for more war. It's never enough, however, just to show that the prevailing
narrative doesn't fit the facts. If you want to change policy, you need a
new story, one that fits the facts far better because it's built on a new
premise.
For centuries, scientists found all sorts of flaws in the old notion that
the sun revolves around the Earth, but it held sway until Copernicus came up
with a brand-new one. The same holds true in politics. What's needed is not
just a negative narrative that says, "Here's why your ideas and actions are
wrong," but a positive one that fits the facts better. Because it's built on
a new premise, it can point to new ways to act in the world, and so rally an
effective movement to demand change.
At their best, peace movements in the past always went beyond critique to
offer stories that described conflicts in genuinely new ways. At present,
however, the U.S. peace movement has yet to find the alternative narrative
it needs to talk about the Islamic State, which leaves it little more than a
silent shadow on the American political scene.
Vietnam Redux
That's not to say that the peace movement is stuck story-less. One
potentially effective narrative that might bring it back to life is sitting
in plain view, right there in the peace activists' most common critique of
the U.S. war against the Islamic State.
IS is not making war on the U.S., the critique explains, nor on Europe. Its
sporadic attacks on those "infidel" lands aim primarily to radicalize
Muslims living there in hopes of recruiting them. Indeed, all IS strategies
are geared toward winning Muslims to its side and gaining more traction in
predominantly Muslim lands. That's where the vast majority of IS-directed or
inspired violence happens, all over what Muslims call dar al-Islam, "the
home of Islam," from Nigeria to Syria to Indonesia.
The problem for the Islamic State: the vast majority of Muslims are just not
buying its story. In fact, IS is making enemies as well as friends
everywhere it goes. In other words, it is involved in a civil war within dar
al-Islam.
Every step we take deeper into that civil war is a misstep that only makes
us more vulnerable. The stronger our stand against the Islamic State, the
more excuses and incentives we give it to try to attack us, and the easier
it is for IS to recruit fighters to do the job. The best way to protect
American lives is to transcend our fears and refuse to take sides in someone
else's civil war.
That's the positive narrative waiting to be extracted from the peace
movement's analysis. One big reason the movement has had such a paltry
influence in these years: it's never spelled out this "Muslim civil war"
narrative explicitly, even though it fits the facts so much better than
either of the war stories on offer. It radically shifts our perception of
the situation by denying the basic premise of the dominant narrative - that
IS is making war on America so we must make war in return. It points to a
new policy of disengagement.
And it's a simple, powerful story for Americans because it's so familiar. It
sends us back half a century and half a world away - to Vietnam. At that
time, my friend and (a bit later) I, too, embraced the narrative that
Vietnam was indeed gripped by a civil war. That explanation would play a
major role in boosting the success of the Sixties peace movement. Within a
few years, many millions of Americans, citizens and soldiers alike, saw the
conflict that way - and not so many years after, all U.S. troops were gone
from Vietnam.
The peace movement's story then was both simple and accurate. No, it said,
we're not the good guys protecting one independent nation from invasion by
another nation. Nor are we fighting an enemy intent on doing us harm. Boxing
champion Muhammad Ali got it right when he said: "I ain't got no quarrel
with the Viet Cong."
Intervening in Vietnam's civil war cost us more than 58,000 American lives
and did untold damage to the vets who survived, not to speak of what it did
to millions of Vietnamese. It showed us that, no matter how superior our
technology, we could not swoop in and win someone else's civil war. Our
intervention was bound to do more harm than good.
Fifty years later, we are repeating the same self-defeating mistake.
Military action against the Islamic State is leading us into another
Vietnam-like "quagmire," this time in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere across the
Greater Middle East. Once again, we have enmeshed ourselves in a complex
civil war abroad with no strategy that can lead to victory. It was wrong
then. It's wrong now.
To put it mildly, the U.S. has a less than stellar track record when it
comes to intervening in other people's civil wars. We've also interfered
quite selectively. In the last two decades, we stayed out of brutal
conflicts in places like the Congo and Sri Lanka. So a decision not to
intervene militarily in a foreign civil war should be familiar enough to
Americans.
To become neutral is not to condone the grim brutality and reactionary
values of the Islamic State. It's hardly likely that twenty-first-century
peace activists will give the IS anything like the sympathy many Vietnam-era
protesters offered the insurgents of that moment. In this case, becoming
neutral merely means suggesting that it's not Washington's job to fight evil
everywhere. Its job is to adopt the strategies most likely to keep Americans
safe.
That's a view most Americans already hold to quite firmly. So the "Muslim
civil war" story just might get a sympathetic hearing in the public arena.
The Bewildering Maze of Muslim Civil War
Of course, the Islamic State is not involved in what we conventionally think
of as a civil war, in which two sides fight for control of a single nation.
Even inside Syria, the number of factions involved in the struggle,
including the oppressive government of Bashar al-Assad and rebels of every
stripe from al-Qaeda-linked to Saudi-linked to U.S.-linked ones, is
bewildering. Since IS is fighting for control not just of Syria but of all
dar al-Islam, many other movements, factions, and forces are involved in
this Muslim civil war as well.
Some observers are too quick to simplify it into a battle of
"traditionalists versus modernizers." In the U.S. mainstream media that
usually translates into a desire for us to intervene on behalf of the
modernizers. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is probably the
best-known advocate of this view. Others simplify it into a battle between
Sunnis and Shi'ites. Since Iran is the leading Shi'ite power, those in the
media tend to favor the Sunnis.
All these simple pictures are painted to build support for one side or
another. The only kind of peace they aim at is one that leaves their favored
side victorious.
In fact, no simple dichotomy can capture the tangled maze of struggles in
dar al-Islam. Sunni traditionalists battle other Sunni traditionalists (for
example, al-Qaeda versus IS). Modernizers join traditionalists to fight
other traditionalists (for example, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in an uneasy
alliance to weaken IS). Sunnis and Shi'ites become allies too (for example,
Kurdish Sunnis and Iraqi Shi'ite militias allied against IS). The U.S.
supports both Shi'ites (like the government of Iraq) and Sunnis (like the
oil-rich Gulf States), while it resists the growing power of both Shi'ites
(like Iran) and Sunnis (like IS).
By emphasizing the true complexity of the Muslim civil war, a peace movement
narrative can cast that war in a different light. Precisely because there
are not two clearly demarcated sides, it makes no sense to cast one side as
the good guys and launch our planes and drones to obliterate the bad guys.
It's bound to lead to incoherence and disaster, especially in this
situation, where the Islamic State, however repugnant to most Americans, is
arguably no worse than our staunch allies, the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Given the confusing, some might say chaotic, maze of intra-Muslim conflict,
it is equally senseless to go on promoting the American fantasy of imposing
order. ("Without order," Friedman has written, "nothing good can happen.")
Taking this road so far has, since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, actually
meant unleashing chaos in significant parts of the Greater Middle East.
There's no reason to think the same road will lead anywhere else in the
future.
Bring the Boys, Girls and Drones Home
The Muslim civil war story leads directly to a radical change in policy:
stop trying to impose a made-in-America order on dar al-Islam. Give up the
dubious gratification of yet another war against "the evildoers." Instead,
offer genuinely humanitarian aid, with no hidden political agenda, to the
victims of the civil war, especially those fleeing a stunning level of
violence in Syria that the U.S. has helped to sustain. But cease all
military action, all economic pressures, and all diplomatic maneuvering
against any one side in the Muslim civil war. Become, as we have in other
civil wars, a genuine neutral.
To call this change of narrative and policy a tall order is an
understatement. There would be massive forces arrayed against it, given the
steady stream of verbal assaults the Islamic State levels against
Washington, which have already inspired one terrible mass killing on
American soil. We don't know when, or if, other attacks will succeed in the
future, whether organized by IS or carried out by "lone wolves" energized by
that outfit.
The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that none of this is
evidence of a war directed against America. It's mainly tactical maneuvering
in a Muslim civil war. For the Islamic State, American lives and fears are
merely pawns in the game. And yet this reality in the Middle East runs
against something lodged deep in our history. For centuries, most Americans
have believed that our nation is the center of world history, that whatever
happens anywhere must somehow be aimed directly at us - and we continue to
see ourselves as the star of the global show.
Most Americans have also been conditioned for decades to believe that what's
at stake is a life-or-death drama in which some enemy, somewhere, is always
intent on destroying our nation. IS is at present the only candidate in
sight for that role and it's hard to imagine the public giving up the firmly
entrenched story that it is out to destroy us. But half a century ago, it
was difficult to imagine that the story of Vietnam would be just as
radically transformed within a few years. So it's a stretch, but not an
inconceivable one, to picture America, a few years from now, ringing with
cries that echo those of the Vietnam era: "U.S. out of dar al-Islam." "Bring
the boys - and girls and bombers and drones - home."
And if anyone says the analogy between Vietnam and the current conflict is
debatable, that's just the point. Rather than a rush to yet more war, it's
time to have a real national debate on the subject. It's time to give the
American people a chance to choose between two fundamentally different
narratives. The task of the peace movement, now as always, is to provide a
genuine alternative.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the
latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Ira Chernus
Ira Chernus is a professor of religious studies at the University of
Colorado and author of MythicAmerica: Essays. He blogs at mythicamerica.us,
hosted by History News Network.
Related Stories
ISIS War Needs to Be Debated in Congress and the UN Security Council
By Mark Weisbrot, The Hill | News AnalysisISIS in Washington: The United
States' Soundtrack of Hysteria
By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch | Op-EdISIS Wants to Destroy the "Gray Zone";
Here's How We Defend It
By Nafeez Ahmed, openDemocracy | Op-Ed
Show Comments
