It is said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; let’s then posit that inconsistency is the hobgoblin of the chattering classes. A propos of which, an important question: does the United States have to defeat ISIS or not? Here are some rules of the game:
- It’s cheating to suggest that we only have to defeat ISIS where our partners are pretty, a little like looking for your lost keys in the lamplight. Either they are dangerous or they are not.
- It’s wrong to suggest that our partners are more than we make of them: guess what, Iraqis are reliable because we made them so; insofar as they are weak, it is because we abandoned them.
- The Free Syrian Army may not be the next Constitutional Convention, but the reason it is less palatable than the Iraqis or Sunni tribes, or the Kurds, is because it has received close to no support from any party with any money, values, arms or goals.
- Just because ISIS isn’t all of al Qaeda doesn’t mean we don’t need to defeat it. ALS isn’t the be-all of neurodegenerative diseases, but we still want to cure it even if we can’t cure all such plagues. Or are millions of ice buckets wrong?
- Opposing the president because he won’t do enough or is wrong or is weak doesn’t mean the entire enterprise of fighting Islamist extremism is wrong.
- We really need to decide why we’re doing anything at all in Iraq or Syria. Either we think ISIS is a major threat or potential threat to the US, or we don’t. If we do, then we need to deal with it regardless of how ugly our partners might be or how difficult the challenge. If we don’t, then why are we bombing stuff?
For those of us who say we must confront this challenge, then let’s ask: can we live with an Islamic State and contain it, or not? That’s the real inconsistency in the discussion and too many people are changing their answers mid-sentence. Very few people are willing to say openly that we can live with it and contain it, but a great many people advocate policies that will have precisely that effect. So out with it. If you think we can live with it, say so and tell us why. If not, then don’t propose strategies that can’t defeat it.
Yes, Iraq is hard. Syria is orders of magnitude harder. It’s harder partly because we’ve done nothing about it for so long — on the grounds that it’s hard. Self-fulfilling prophecy anyone? If the threat is real, then we need to do the hard stuff. If it isn’t, then what are we all talking about? Let’s get that issue settled once and for all, and then we can properly discuss what we NEED to do and where to protect our people and our allies.
Arguments from the right have popped up that suggest that somehow Obama is on the slippery slope to becoming George Bush, or that he is taking America where no American should again tread. The simple answer to those charges is that we can fight these enemies ourselves; we can arm others to fight them; or we can wait for them to kill us here. Which, exactly, are our friends advocating?
Follow AEIdeas on Twitter at @AEIdeas.
Yes, I am a conservative and I am unconcerned about ISIS. Terrorists have killed 180,000 Americans since 9/11. Those terrorists were called drunk drivers.
ISIS? Let the Iraqis figure it out.
ISIS is international aggression by proxy, not something the Iraqis alone can “figure out.”
The Iraqis are not weak because we abandoned them. The Iraqi army should have been militarily capable of taking on ISIS without our help, but two full divisions (30,000 troops) reportedly cut and ran in the face of just 800 ISIS fighters. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states)
I’d say the Iraqis are weak because too many people in leadership positions were more interested in personal, tribal, factional, and/or sectarian power than in building a strong, unified country.
Small thing first: insofar as [Iraqis] are weak, it is because we abandoned them.
Really? Was Iraq weak because the Russians abandoned them before us? Isn’t this need to be propped up–Iraq’s strength coming from outside support and not from within them–the fundamental weakness?
To your question: [D]oes the United States have to defeat ISIS or not?
Categorically, no. Evil cannot be merely defeated; it always comes back to try again, usually stronger. ISIS must be destroyed. Full stop.
Contain them? Their goals are two: a worldwide caliphate, subjugating survivors (the nature of that subjugation is demonstrated by ISIS’ current…captives) and killing Americans and America. Oh, and Israelis and Israel. And Europeans and Europe. They’re not interested in the coexistence implied by containment, even were containment possible. ISIS must be destroyed. Full stop.
An aside: Obama is on the slippery slope to becoming George Bush
Say, rather, Obama is engaged in a Sisyphean climb.
Eric Hines
Iraq was still backed by the Russians. The US finally defeated the predator regime that had made it an international aggressor and then Obama abandoned it.
Yes the US has to defeat Islamo-Arab imperialism (of which ISIS is merely yet another state-backed mercenary army) because Islamo-Arab imperialism is at present the primary aggressor in the world. Period.
Obama is having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that Bush was right.
As for the risk of a jihad Islamic terror attack here in homeland America. There might be a high chance of that. Be it the terror entity Al Qaeda,ISIS or some other jihad minded Islamic group. Furthermore ,since that thirteenth anniversary of murderous jihadist affront on humankind and America of September 11, 2001 was just last week we ,as Americans, would be wise to have both Fortitude and Vigilance. For the enemy is still scheming for a future attack. To put this in another way, the wisdom of the words of Thomas Jefferson may apply even more now then they did in his own time. For Mr. Jefferson stated “Fortitude…teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties: not to fly from them.” and “Let the eye of vigilance never be closed.”