The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?

Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.

Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place.  Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria.  What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader.  Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State  are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode.  Whose left?  What about Vladimir Putin?  Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace.  Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you.  Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.

ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.  The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  What is a Caliph?  A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority.  At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan.  The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals.  The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.  Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant.  As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder.  The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear.  Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus.  How are they able to convince so many young people to join?  ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope.  For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home.  And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr.  For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.

Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS.  In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well.  Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS.  There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys.  But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job.  Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS.  Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast.  If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS.  But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?

In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious.  I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends.  I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor.  I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS.  I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish.  The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state.  Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand?  Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago.  Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now.  Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job. 

Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.

Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
           B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.

So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations.  How quickly we forget who we are dealing with.  Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict.  Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight.  The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War.  Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia.  The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research.  But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend".  And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama.  And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.

I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.  All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative.  I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right?  Fat chance.  Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office.  Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world.  The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives.  Now for a bit of simple, common-sense.  ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida.  Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf.  The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala.  Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire.  There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon.  It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities.  But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections.  Well, we saw how far that demand went.

Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race.  Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool.  This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents.  Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart.  In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base.  I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago.  Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike.  On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets.  This is the world we live in today, 2015.  Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.  Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base?  What an absurd law.  I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed.  I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader..... 

What is in a Name? IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh

By Jennifer Jennings, Guest Blogger
sistereight@icloud.com    Twitter @Sistereight 

Links: A. “There is no al-Sham”
           B.  Levant and al-Sham are not Synonyms
           C.  France Swtiches to Daesh Acronym

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
- Act II, Scene II of Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare

What is in a name?  Well, when it comes to branding … everything.  And that includes the branding of political groups.  While the truth of what a group represents is defined in large part by their deeds and actions, it is also defined, in part, by what others can be convinced to believe they represent.  And this all starts with nomenclature, known in contemporary terms as “spin”.  Normally I would have expected that a group lacking a clear, unambiguous, and universally recognized name would have difficulty maintaining legitimacy or attention.  Perhaps this is my business background biasing my view.  You usually can't get widespread attention for a product or your brand if everyone is referring to it as something different.  But over the last four months I've seen the militant terrorists in Iraq and Syria get just this kind of attention despite the fact that no one can quite seem to agree on what to call them.  I suppose when you destroy lives and property, take control of and oppress populations, and publicly behead those who disagree . . . well then you are bound to capture attention regardless of what various names are being used to refer to you.  So why then all the disparity in names?  And why the multiple news articles and mentions addressing the disparity?   Wouldn’t it just be easiest to go with the self-given name of the group?  Well, let's start with this then.

الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام
This is the self-given name of the militant terrorist group in question.  Not so easy to use in European/western conversation, or oral news reporting, or even for readers to continually recognize in print.  Even the romanization of the Arabic script leaves us with the lengthy: ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām, which is difficult for western ears, tongues and memories.  So a translation seems the natural course:  Put the name in the native language of the reader/listener.  This will make it easier to refer to, easier to remember, and easier to understand in an instant just what it is that the group is self-proclaiming via their name.  If only translation were so simple a task . . .

• ad-Dawlah translates easy enough as “the State” (which brings its own issues)
• al-Islāmīyah is also an easy translation to “Islamic” (also creating issues)
• fīl-ʻIraq is accepted to translate as “of Iraq”

The first two easily translated words form the “IS” basis of the names IS, ISIS, and ISIL, since there is no dispute that they translate as “the Islamic State”.  And while it’s also readily accepted that the next portion translates as “of Iraq”, it is ambiguity with the final part that leads to the split between the users of ISIS and those of ISIL, and ultimately to those that avoid the dispute entirely by sticking simply with IS.

wa ash-Shām/ ISIS v ISIL

For translators, this is the most complicated portion of the self-given name. It refers to “al-Sham”: a region that is translated either as the Levant or as Syria.  There are some that

claim that al-Sham and the Levant are essentially, or even exactly, the same thing, while others argue that there are cultural differences that indicate the true motivation of the jihadist group we are dealing with.

• The Levant:  The term first appeared in English in 1497 and is borrowed from the French, levant,  meaning “rising”.   It is used to refer to the east Mediterranean, where the sun rises and is accepted to refer to a geographical and cultural region that includes Cyrpus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of Southern Turkey. 
• al-Sham:  This term refers to Bilad al-Sham which is sometimes also called “Greater Syria”. It is a province that is roughly incorporated by the same area as the Levant, but was in existence far earlier (630s-940s) as an Islamic Caliphate with Damascus as its capital. 

Some of the dispute between using ISIS versus ISIL seems to stem from two sources:   First, and easiest to dismiss is that the last "S" in ISIS shouldn’t stand for “Syria”, as the modern version of this country doesn’t include all the countries of the historical al-Sham.  Most news sources have recognized that the “Syria” translated here is referring to the Greater Syria of old.  Although, to avoid confusion this is why some have chosen “Levant” rather than “Syria” for use in the acronym and have thus gone with ISIL.  The other dispute comes from those that claim al-Sham and Levant are in fact not synonymous, but that the use of al-Sham has a deeper, older, cultural and religious meaning that indicates a “race to Jeruselem” for the militant Islamic group (link B).  Those with this perspective prefer using “ISIS” over “ISIL” with the final “S” referring to al-Sham, not Syria and certainly not the Levant, as they argue that this is a western geographical distinction that ignores the prior religious significance that al-Sham held to the Muslims.

DAESH
Another major difference in nomenclature for this militant jihadist group comes from the refusal to recognize them as a State, or as representing Islam.  Daesh is a loose

acronym formed from ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and is most frequently used by enemies of the group as it has negative undertones: it sounds similar in Arabic to words  Daes meaning "one who crushes something underfoot" and Dahes meaning "one who sows discord".  This name, Daesh, has been officially adopted by the French government (see link C), but I see it most frequently used by Kurds in Syria that I follow on Twitter.  In fact, on Twitter there was a campaign to make the name even more insulting: the winning hashtag was #daeshbag. However, I do still see the runner up, #daesshole, used almost as frequently.  For the terrorists being targeted with the name Daesh, there is strong evidence that they do in deed take offense to it:  there are reports out of northern Iraq that anyone caught using this name is subject to having their tongue cut out by the militants.  It is worth noting that there are westerners and Europeans who are opposed to calling the terrorists Daesh.  They argue that it ignores and hides the fact that the militants are an Islamic religious group intent on converting the world to submit to Islamic rule and law by forcing non-believers into slavery, and/or to pay tax for not being Muslim, and/or being beheaded.

As a civilized people, we like to label and neatly categorize.  I started off feeling this same way;  I was simply annoyed when one newscast said "ISIS" while the U.S. Government said "ISIL" and my Kurd Tweeps said "Daesh".  Like most people, I am more comfortable if everyone is on the same page.  I have come to accept that everyone is not.  In my personal journey to figure out the “right name” for this group, I can’t say that I’ve come to any definitive conclusions.  I know they’re the bad guys.  But I have come to realize that it is much less important what I personally call "them", those evil militant beheaders in the Middle East, and more important that I keep listening to all the different names they call themselves and are being called by others.  And that then I ask “why”?  What motives and beliefs does each group have that cause it to refuse the name that others use and offer one of its own? Only then can I begin to get a glimmer of understanding into the chaos of this region.

Battle Of Baghdad.....The End Of the Beginning

Links:  A. Iraqi Army Struggles On In Anbar
            B. Suicide Attack In Baiji

I'm hoping to eventually stumble onto a blog that is exclusively devoted to disseminating articles about Iraqi military engagements.  I am fascinated with the Iraqi Defense Force and its attempt to combat the Islamic Front in Anbar Province.  The conflict in Syria is ugly, disorganized, and hidden most of the time.  But for us armchair generals, Iraq presents the opportunity to watch at least one army as it pursues strategic goals.  The Iraqi Army is attempting to engage and destroy elements of the Islamic State in The Levant (IS) in Anbar Province.  Over the past month we have taken a close look at the strategies of both parties as the Iraqis seek to defend greater Baghdad.  Since its initial military movements in northern Iraq, the IS has presented a difficult target.  I had fallen into the trap of expecting IS forces engaged in Iraq to resemble the IS elements that had been engaged in Syria since 2012.  I was taken by surprise with the IS and its use of heavy weaponry (artillery in particular).  I had grown accustomed to groups of men riding around in Toyota pick-ups that had been rigged with an anti-aircraft or large caliber machine-gun in the bed.  From the beginning, the IS has shown a military sophistication in Iraq that includes the ability to effectively use artillery, strategically move large numbers of fighters from one area to another, and to control extensive resupply lines.  Most importantly, the IS has demonstrated the ability to adapt.  The IS appears just as comfortable using guerilla tactics as they do utilizing heavy weaponry and fighting in larger units.

The IS rarely makes a public statement without barking something or other about the creation of an Islamic Fundamentalist Nation.  They seem to prefer the word, "Caliphate", but who gives a shit.  This beast, which rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has a true organizational structure.  If we were in a boardroom and I had a flip chart, I could probably draw a nice diagram (and one of the numerous people sleeping would fart in appreciation).  We have the political IS and the military IS; the talented folks in CTC at Langley have the complete political picture, no doubt.  At the moment we here at MB are solely concerned with the military wing of the IS.  Link A seems to be a carbon copy of a situational update that I read last week in the NY Times.  Who controls Fallujah, the IS or the Iraqi Army?  And Ramadi?  The truth is that the only time the Iraqi Army makes any headway in Anbar is when they participate in a U.S.- planned ground attack (with armor) coordinated with allied air attacks.  The current state of the Iraqi Air Force seems to be a complete mystery.  They were supposed to receive 18 F16s over a period of two years.  The pilots are currently training in the United States, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a typical show of Iraqi ingratitude, complained about the F16 and purchased five second-hand Sukhoi (Su) 25's to counter the IS threat.  (Entertaining side note: Iran generously "gave" Iraq a handful of Su-25's as well, as a show of solidarity against the IS.  And by the way, the majority of the Su-25's that arrived from Iran were ex-Iraqi Air Force planes that had fled Iraq at the start of the Gulf War, rather than face sure death in combat with U.S. Air Force F16s.)  So we know that the Iraqi Air Force has a few Migs and Su-25s, not to mention a handful of Russian Helicopters.  Does anyone know if the Iraqi Air Force is participating in the allied air campaign?

Link B is a reminder that the IS is very familiar with urban-warfare tactics.  The suicide car bombs were a specialty of Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Iraqis are experiencing them all over again.  Even though the heavier elements of the IS forces are engaged with the Iraqi Army in Anbar (and with allied air attacks in Syria), the plan to seed the poorer Sunni neighborhoods of greater Baghdad is in full swing.  From today onward, You can be sure that any mortars launched toward government buildings, military targets, or foreign diplomatic property in Baghdad, will originate from the poor Sunni bedroom communities of Baghdad.  And the car bombs will be built in the same neighborhoods.  The IS is conducting this war in a very sophisticated manner, successfully engaging in what is a three-front war (In September Secretary of Defense Hagel was quoted as saying that the goal was to force the IS to fight a three-front war).  The current areas of conflict include Syria, Anbar Province in eastern Iraq, and Kurdistan/northern Iraq.  I am surprised at the IS's ability to function so effectively.  I had anticipated that IS fortunes would suffer somewhere, but it hasn't happened.  They are hanging tough in Kobani, staying on the offensive against regular Syrian forces, threatening again in northern Iraq, and giving the Iraqi Army fits in Anbar.  Just this morning I learned that the IS had restarted the "Great Yezidi Roundup of 2014".  Yee Ha.  You would think that after a while they would run out of Yezidis. 

I'm going out on a limb and predicting that as the days go by, the focus of this conflict will become less on Syria and more on Iraq.  The IS is determined to capture Baghdad.  It hasn't always been a target, but once it became apparent that Baghdad could be captured, the IS created a plan.  Seed the poorer neighborhoods with operatives, play-up the Sunni/Shia conflict, conduct daily car bombings and mortar attacks, and destabilize the city.  With no U.S. ground forces, the IS will have little trouble taking Baghdad one street at a time, the same MO presently in use in Ramadi and Fallujah.  I think we can call the last week of October 2014, the end of the beginning of The Battle of Baghdad.

Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part I)

Link: The Crusades

The Birth of Israel


Part I

Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog.  But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot.  Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher).  But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.

The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages.  My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea.  The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE.  In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...).  The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land.  This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade.  At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks.  The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword).  The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.

Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians.  Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control.  Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire.  Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine.  The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best).  At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.  The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans.  During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust).  The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home.  In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state.  The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state.  The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel.  The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war.  That reputation exists today.  The history lesson is complete.  Now on to the difficult part.

ISIS, ISIL, Friends of the Caliphate, Caliphatians, whatever.....

Link:  Questions about the Caliphate you were too embarrassed to ask

The media has yet to decide exactly what to call the latest boogeyman on the Islamic Extremist scene.  And this one is a doozy.  At first they were known as ISIS, then Islamic State of the Caliphate (sorta rhymes), and now I'm hearing ISIL (thanks General Dempsey and Bagel Hagel).  The link provided answers some of the more pressing questions, and I have added some simple facts myself.  As far as extremist groups go, they are neophytes.  No Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Egyptian Brotherhood (EIJ) from the 1950s or Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the 60s and 70s. But they are leaving a mighty big footprint for a newcomer.  This group is dedicated to creating a new Caliphate, something akin to the old Ottoman Empire.  The difference being, the Ottoman Empire was usually run by a besotted, sometimes pedophilic, other times syphilitic Sultan who had no interest in Islam whatsoever.  The Sultan of old also held the title of Caliph, which historically is the religious leader for all Muslims.  ISIL (my choice) is not interested in a Sultan but they do want a Caliph, and they want a Caliphate, a geographic area that their religious leader can rule over.  ISIL has repeatedly avowed to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Jordan and parts of Iraq to form their ideal Caliphate.  Of course, this will include Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capitol.  Make no mistake; these guys are for real, and they do not believe in compromise (otherwise I'd say lets just give them Syria and be done with it).

I strongly recommend that anyone seriously interested in the motivations and believes of this group to educate yourself on the Ottoman Empire.  The Ottomans were a Muslim

bunch who happened to have the most powerful military in the world in the 15th and 16th centuries.  They had a history of getting along with Christians within their borders, which is markedly different from ISIL.  But the leaders of ISIL seem to bask in the memory of Ottoman glory, recalling the days when twice Ottoman troops laid siege to Vienna (only to be defeated by the unluckiest of circumstances).  Please read The Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross, one of the greatest historic books I have read.
We have also heard another less-than common term being bandied about.  I have been asked more than once, "What is the Levant?"  Well, ladies and gentleman, the Levant is the geographic area that borders the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.  The French, who used to run Lebanon and Syria, were very fond of the term.  The Levant refers to Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.

Just so that no one misunderstands the motivations and intentions of ISIL, they may talk about only occupying enough countries to constitute their "dream" Caliphate, but I can assure you the battle will not end there.  There was a time when you could gather up 25 Islamic Extremists and you would be lucky to find 2 who were prepared to give their lives for Allah.  ISIL is different.  It seems that every one of these folks are obsessed with reaching the Pearly Gates.  This group is a Trident of tremendous danger, with three dangerous prongs.  The first is the absolute extreme attitude of the members of ISIL, the second is ISIL's ready access to loads of money, and the third prong is the vacillation of the West.  The Devil holds this Trident, and its only a matter of time before we feel the tips.