At the G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Barack Obama gave one of the most bizarre performances of his presidency. The November 16, 2015 speech was notable, first, for its gloating over imaginary successes at a time when failures are evident and, second, for the emergence of a new strategy against the Islamic State (ISIS).
In the gloating category, the president touted his administration’s handling of Libya 26 days after Congressional hearings exposed the lies of Benghazi, boasted of improving worldwide airline security 17 days after an ISIS bomb downed a Russian passenger jet, and hectored his political foes for suggesting he reconsider accepting thousands of refugees from Syria just 2 days after it was learned that one or more of the Paris suicide bombers had come to France from Syria as refugees. It was as though he was trying to eclipse the bad timing of his November 13 interview with George Stephanopoulos, when he claimed to have “contained” ISIS only hours before the Paris attacks.
But the short speech and the long Q&A session were even more remarkable for illustrating the administration’s deliberate tactic of attempting to embarrass and belittle ISIS verbally – as though words alone will halt its growth. The president referred to ISIS as “simply a network of killers,” “a handful of people who don’t mind dying” and “killers with fantasies of glory.” He drew the facile conclusion that “ISIL pretends that they’re a functioning state” and that “we play into the ISIL narrative when we act as if they are a state.”
While it is true that military power alone is unlikely to defeat ISIS permanently, and that an attack on its ideology is necessary, this new approach is nothing more than the president casting aspersions on the Islamic legitimacy of ISIS and downplaying its operational capabilities and significance. As a strategy, it reveals a shocking failure to understand what ISIS seeks to be and what in fact it has become.
Early hints of the president’s rhetorical tactic were evident in his first significant speech about ISIS on September 10, 2014, when he claimed that “ISIL is not Islamic” (a claim few believed). This tactic will undoubtedly have the same effect on ISIS that it had on the Taliban when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush contested Mullah Omar’s Islamic bona fides and called his regime’s crimes “un-Islamic.” As Daniel Pipes pointedly asked fourteen years ago, “realistically, which Muslims accept spiritual guidance from the White House?”
Also evident in that first speech was an early version of the attempt to downplay ISIS’s significance by asserting that it “is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.” Seeking to counter Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s claim that he had restored the caliphate, Obama decreed: “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”
But al-Baghdadi’s proclamation of a caliphate and desire to expand the territory ruled by Sharia law are part of a very clear vision. Failing to recognize that vision may have been excusable in September of 2014, but not on November 16, 2015. The president’s apparent belief that ISIS’s existence depends on his recognition is downright solipsistic. ISIS is an Islamic polity that holds territory greater than Great Britain, stretches over three continents, and has demonstrated the ability to project power throughout the world. It is more powerful than many states, and far more dangerous than all but a few. It is a caliphate accompli.
Obama is not alone in his view. Current Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri claims that al-Baghdadi is not worthy of the name caliph. The International Union of Muslim Scholars, one of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s projects, found al-Baghdadi’s declaration illegitimate and pronounced it “null and void.”
Many Western analysts concur. Writing in the Guardian, William Dalrymple finds al-Baghdadi’s “self-declaration” dependent on a “flimsy legal basis.” Jocelyne Cesari, director of Harvard University’s “Islam in the West” program and Georgetown University’s “Islam in World Politics” program, argues that since “most historical caliphates were actually fairly tolerant political entities” al-Baghdadi’s claim is “kind of ridiculous.”
Worse still, Raymond William Baker, excerpting his book for Salon.com, argues that “The United States is at war with a very different, mythic Islam of its own making that has nothing at all to do with this Islam of the Qur’an. To make sense of that conjured threat, scholarly studies of Islam or Islamic movements are of no help at all.” The president appears to be following Baker’s advice.
Of course Baker is profoundly wrong, for the history of the Islamic Caliphate is enormously instructive. According to Islamic tradition, after the death of Muhammad in 632, a leader was required to rule the empire created by what the Koran calls the “Seal of the Prophets.” That leader became known as the Caliph (Arabic for “successor”), and his empire was called the caliphate. Muhammad’s follower and friend Abu Bakr was named the first Caliph – clearly Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has chosen his nom de guerre carefully.
Islamic tradition refers to the first four Caliphs as the “rightly-guided Caliphs” who ruled the empire from the origin of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Then came the Umayyad dynasty which ruled the caliphate from Damascus, followed by the Abbasid dynasty which ruled from Iraq. By the 10th century, the caliphate had grown so large that it ceased effectively to be governed by one entity and fell into a state of tribal dominance. First came the Buyids, then the Seljuqs, and finally the caliphate was subsumed by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman growth was not stunted until the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683, which began its two-century slide into a steadily smaller and less influential entity.
Abolition, for all practical purposes, came after World War I, when the triumphant French and British Empires carved up the Ottoman Empire, but it officially came when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk announced its dissolution in 1924. Nearly a century of irredentism followed, leaving a trail of Islamists longing for the Caliphate’s restoration.
The first serious attempt to restore the caliphate began with Hasan al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928. But perhaps the idea was expressed most succinctly by Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s concept of a “World Revolution.” Speaking at the town hall in Lahore, Pakistan on Iqbal Day, April 13, 1939, Maududi announced that “Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” Osama bin Laden was essentially following Maududi in his quest to unite the numerous competing Islamic vanguards into the “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” in 1998.
So while the president denies that ISIS is anything other than a second-rate terrorist group (formerly the junior varsity), it functions very much like a state: minting its own currency, printing its own passports, and running its own schools (which reject the instruction of art but specialize in the art of suicide bombing).
Like the original caliphate, ISIS seeks to expand. By reaching out to other Islamists and terrorist organizations, al-Baghdadi is following Maududi’s vision of amalgamation. In October 2014, the Pakistani Taliban pledged allegiance to ISIS, prompting fears that the Afghan Taliban will follow suit. In March 2015, Boko Haram pledged allegiance. In October 2015, factions of the Somali group Al-Shabaab pledged allegiance. In fact, according to the Intel Center, 35 Islamist terror groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS, making Maududi’s dream of all the vanguards coalescing into one United Jihad Front look like a reality.
ISIS has made inroads and struck across the entire Maghreb: cells have been broken up in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and Egypt. The new Caliphate is even encroaching on the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, where it has carried out a suicide bombing in Sucruc, and killed vocal critics of ISIS such as Ibrahim Abdulqadir and Fares Hamadi.
The fact that ISIS holds significant territory and is capable of threats more like those posed by nation states than by clandestine terrorist organizations might lead some to include it in a category dubbed the “gray area phenomenon” – which according to Bruce Hoffman denotes a terrorist organization that controls “immense regions or urban areas” and poses “threats to the stability of nation states.” Fortunately, when a terrorist group attains this level, it also becomes susceptible to conventional military tactics, as was the case with the Tamil Tigers.
The FBI says it has investigations into ISIS cells in all 50 states – territory where no caliphate ever existed, but where Islamists from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden have dreamed of conquest. Pretending the caliphate does not exist is unlikely to yield positive results. And yet this fantasy has become a significant part of the “degrade” half of the Obama “degrade and destroy” strategy.
The belief that verbal ripostes and incisive humiliation will degrade ISIS betrays the mindset of an administration still overly impressed with its rhetorical skills. John Keats summed up this delusional thinking nearly two centuries ago when he wrote: “Let the fish philosophize the ice away from the Rivers in winter time, and they shall be at continual play in the tepid delight of summer.” Unfortunately, ISIS cannot be philosophized away.
A.J. Caschetta is a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Shillman-Ginsberg fellow at the Middle East Forum. He can be reached at ajcgsl@rit.edu.

Don McKellar says
Obama’s stance and rhetoric on the Islamic State are largely derived from his frustration with seeing his envisioned Muslim Brotherhood caliphate collapse in Egypt. Obama wants a caliphate, as do all moslems, but just not this one. However, because it exists and he cannot sure if it is Allah’s will for it to be there, he cannot fully commit himself to working towards its destruction. It is a difficult issue for Obama, to be sure. This is why, at every turn, he points an accusing finger at Assad as somehow being the problem, and making lunatic-level assertions that if only Assad were gone, the Islamic State would go away because they’d — uh — have nothing to fight against. Or something like that. Oh, and global warming is to blame, too. Somehow.
Yes, Obama is the worst president of the modern era, beating even George the Idiot — a remarkable feat!
Don McKellar says
BTW, this is a well done and referenced piece, A.J.!
Charli Main says
The endless stream of hot air blowing out of Obama’s mouth is probably a major contributor to global warming.
Mirren10 says
🙂
Nice one, Charli !
Add on camoron, may, merkel, bliar et al …
underbed cat says
Charli I too agree and say that “hot air” equals diversion (and cash for the caliphate), it’s ludecris, but logical if you understand “permissible lying to spread …i, if you get my drift.
خَليفة says
Don, I completely agree with your assessment.
Bull Herman says
At least George had a domestic policy that protected the Second Amendment; which means the Constitution in general.
Imagine if Gore had gotten in. Gas would be $15 per gallon. We’d all take transit busses, even on vacation, to church, to the grocery store. Crime would be rampant since on the criminals would have guns. There would be social workers on every bus, telling us to ignore being mugged, robbed, and raped because the criminals need to feel better.
And the above paragraph would also apply if USA became USofSharia.
A major problem with Obama are media types like George Stupidopouloa, who believe we are all better off if he does the thinking for us regarding our news and views. These people are the “yes you can” types who feed giant egos like Obama and Hillary.
RE Hillary? Her main personal assistant is the wife of the failed sexual deviant munchkin politician from NY. That’s the kind of people she’s looking for? Best hope for Trump, Carson, or Fiorina next four years. And Sarah Palin as Energy Secretary. If she could write AK’s policy, she could get it done in Wash DC.
The reporters will all run off the nearest pier into the sea like the rodents they are.
خَليفة says
There are two possibilities:
1) Obama actually believes everything he says In spite of contrary evidence
2) he is knowingly spewing taqiya ( which he learned from his father and stepfather and iman )
Jack Diamond says
“since ‘most historical caliphates were actually fairly tolerant political entities’ al-Baghdadi’s claim is ‘kind of ridiculous’… “a ‘flimsy legal basis'”…
The history of the Rightly Guided Caliphs is musical chairs by murder. How is that for precedence?
How tolerant was the first Caliph Abu Bakr in the RIdda Wars, slaughtering thousands trying to leave Islam? How tolerant were the Islamic armies sent out by those best of Muslim, right guided Caliphs, demanding non-Muslims in other countries convert, live under subjugation and humiliation, or die by the sword?
Here is the official verdict of the mullahs at Islam Q&A on the subject of how one becomes caliph:
The imam (ruler) or caliph was appointed to lead the Islamic state by one of three methods:
1-He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-
Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.
2-Appointment to the position by the previous caliph, when one caliph passes on the position to a particular person who is to succeed him after he dies. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab became caliph when the position was passed on to him by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him).
3–By means of force and prevailing over others. When a man becomes caliph by prevailing over the people by the sword, and he establishes his authority and takes full control, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and he becomes the leader of the Muslims. Examples of that include some of the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs, and those who came after them. This method is contrary to sharee’ah, because it is seized by force. But because great interests are served by having a ruler who rules the ummah, and because a great deal of mischief may result from chaos and loss of security in the land, the one who seizes authority by means of the sword should be obeyed if he seizes power by force but he rules in accordance with the laws of Allaah.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
If a man rebels and seizes power, the people must obey him, even if he seizes power by force and without their consent, because he has seized power.
The reason for that is that if his rule is contested, it will lead to a great deal of evil, and this is what happened during the Umayyad period when some of them seized power by means of force and gained the title of caliph, and people obeyed them in obedience to the command of Allaah. End quote.
Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Safaareeniyyah (p. 688). ”
http://islamqa.info/en/111836
Seizing the Caliphate by force and prevailing over others is perfectly “legal”– nor can it be denied the Islamic State is enforcing the rules of Allah (shari’a), in full.
John Johness says
“Seizing the Caliphate by force and prevailing over others is perfectly “legal”– ” Precisely and this is what all the academics and fax intellectuals completely miss. It is the legitimacy by God of force and violence. It is a tribal tradition and ,really in that society, it is the only way.
Allah shows his approval by letting you win, ‘ma’shalla’. It is the basis of Islamic history.
Interestingly this is why USA had so much respect from the average Arabs on the street.
Their ultimate legitimacy will be to take Mecca and Medina.
Bull Herman says
Another well thought comment.
Why the Israelis are hated yet respected.
Why US did get respect even though Obama claimed we were hated. The hate came after Obama’s election btw.
Tells us what our children will be fighting for in 20 yrs once the US immigrant’s jihadi programed children come of age.
Bull Herman says
What I said earlier–comment, clarification…
The many fair haired and beautiful women of Turkey today. Offspring of those women kidnapped, raped, sold off, forced into marriage, etc, back then.
Makes me sick.
Bull Herman says
Absolutely right.
I can’t remember the names, but one of these you name went against a Christian king (not Crusades) a number of times. He’d kidnap, kill, and run…
Then he finally conquered the Christian king. The king and his remaining family etc converted.
Afterward, the king used Rules of Islam to his advantage. He lied about his conversion. Summoned the ruling emir for more soldiers. He then killed them all.
The Islamic ruler got really pissed. He came down personally and this time destroyed the remnant. But of course not those women he wanted to rape, trade, enslave, and forcibly convert… The king and his surviving men elected to go into their church.
The Muslims then built a huge wall of wood around the church that they set on fire.
They watched while the king and his men sang hymns and burned. Their shadows are on the floor of that church even today.
Lesson learned.
You are correct.
I appreciate your analogy.
Thanks
MS says
Obama and the Western leaders’ enthusiasm for military intervention in Syria has little to do with IS and more to do with controlling Syria ( and removing Asad). They had all the time and capabilities to wipe off IS but they didn’t. After the US/ Arab allies bombing campaign, IS became stronger and gained more territory, the Kurds Peshmerga, who are genuine anti- IS fighters, became weaker.
Also it is difficult to explain the obsession with removing Asad, who is just an average leader, the kind you expect in the Middle East. The aggressive campaign to demonise him just fits the scenario that precedes regime change. There are more atrocities and human disasters in Yemen, caused by the Saudis, but doesn’t seem to touch the conscience of our leaders.
My explanation for this weird strategy is that the US wants to stop Russia from having control over Syria, or at least to secure a slice of the cake.
IS, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Islamic extremism..etc are not deemed enemies by our leaders and they have never been. This is why their strategy looks so weird.
hollyhansard says
Yes. “Weird.” However, to the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn’t look “weird.” It looks, good.
Edgar Allen says
“To make sense of that conjured threat, scholarly studies of Islam or Islamic movements are of no help at all”
That’s the new “line of defense” we’re going to see. Because studying Islam has opened the eyes of so many people, the shift will be to say that studying Islamic texts is “irrelevant”. This reminds me of Hillary:
” What difference does it make?”
underbed cat says
The G-20 Summit, in Turkey……sort of a OIC of banks? His statements will be well recieved by some in voilved….I would think that would be a dangerous place for those who are confused. Like the western countries……money flow redesigned as carbon.
underbed cat says
The G-20 Summit, in Turkey……sort of a OIC of banks? His statements will be well recieved by some in voived….I would think that would be a dangerous place for those who are confused. Like the western countries……money flow redesigned as carbon. …
John Johness says
Good article – thank you
Do an edit “Writing in the Guardian, Theodore Dalrymple”. It is William Dalrymple. Two very different view on Islam
Angemon says
Probably courtesy of his adviser, Señor Doobie…
vcragain says
The problem is not what ISIS itself thinks it is, but what the rest of Islam thinks it is. The history of these people has been very traumatic among themselves, they have been fighting EACH OTHER for hundreds of years, since the time of Mohamed’s death, one viscious war after another to gain supremacy & claim to be the ‘correct’ branch of the faith or ‘top dog’ of Islam, almost at 5 year intervals, this is nothing new, It is quite ridiculous. My personal feeling is ‘let them just fight it out and stop interfering’ but the problem is we have too many Muslims in our midst now and they will be a problem if we just ignore this. I wish the whole Muslim ‘thing’ would just go away & leave us alone, as Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc do – the worst we have from them is Jehovah’s witnesses arriving on our doorsteps every so often – when I just say “thank you – I have heard your story a million times and it does not impress me !” and they go away peacefully until the next ‘try’ ! At this point in my life I have learned to loathe this whole Islamic ‘thing’ with all my being, so I am a dead woman if they ever get too much power – charming thought !
Scott Morgan says
Since September 11th, there have been a number of successful as well as attacks by Muslims that were stopped before they occurred. As Obama brings in thousands more Muslims, there will be additional attacks. Obama is a disaster for this nation.
Yoel Yativ says
Can one of you patriotic Americans prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii?
If this is true and you are able to prove it you might be on time to save your country and help the world.
Otherwise please post the authenticated birth certificate.
dajjal says
How shall we make them understand that its Islam, Stupid! WW2 was not against Panzirs, SS & Kamikazi, it was against the Axis Powers. This war is against Islam; Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS etc. et al are fronts for Islam, they prevent us from recognizing the enemy.
How did Moe make his living after his cougar died? What is the meaning of “my provision is placed under the shade of my spear”? Do you really need to look it up in Fath ul-Bari?? What are the meanings of 8.1 & 8.41 in the light of 8.67? How does that tie in with Bukhari’s book of Khumus? Can anyone connect the dots???
What do you learn about Jihad when you read pages 140, 141, 144 & 145 of the second volume of Hedaya? Who will poleaxe the powers that be with the fatal facts? Perhaps a Spencerian lecture at the House Anti Terrorism Caucus is in order.
dajjal says
He will not be impeached convicted and removed in any case, regardless of evidence. Our hope for the future is in nominating and electing Senator Ted Cruz to the office of President next year. Failing that, we are up feces creek.
yuval says
It takes a scientist of nature, an engineer, to see the truth obscured by the men of social self-delusion, such as Barack Hussein Obama. So many of the self deluded are products of the self-centered social “sciences”.
When the self cannot separate reality from wishes, its termed a psychiatric disease. Pigs can fly if they will it. Thus the manjority of western leaders should rightly be hospitalized in psychiatric institutions
Shel_TR says
I think Caschetta has missed. I presume that Obama has a different strategy. I believe he’s trying to embarrass ISIS members and leadership, and goad them into acting out of pride. Such mistakes may lead ISIS commanders or cadres to expose themselves prematurely, and thereby allow their capture or interdiction. A second intent is to make ISIS’ “soft” supporters second-guess their assumption of ISIS’ success and legitimacy. Admittedly, hard-core supporters will not be swayed at all by any rational argument. But reducing the “soft” support may tamp-down parents’ willingness to have their children indoctrinated with ISIS or Islamist propaganda, thereby reducing the future supply of recruits for terrorist training programs.