Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The Islamic STATE!
Just last week I was thinking that we ought to start treating the Islamic State exactly as it claims to be: a state. It does after all have territory about the size of Florida. It has a government, an army, a court system, it collects taxes, provides health care, collects the garbage, and so on. In other words, it has all the marks of an actual state. If we decide to recognize the IS as a nation among the family of nations, then we can pass a Declaration of War against it and fight its agents wherever they rear their ugly heads: Paris, Libya, New York City, wherever. In addition, we don’t have to pay as much attention to sparing the lives of the so-called innocent civilians. We can simply bomb them into submission, like we did Japan.
So just last week I was thinking that this would be a good strategic move, and then yesterday the president trashed the whole idea. I am continually amazed at how contradictory my thinking is from his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm not sure congress even wants to tackle the ISIS problem. I doubt they would issue a declaration of war. Is there some rule that says you can only declare war against a sovereign nation? I looked in the constitution and don't see anything.
As a sovereign nation ourselves, who else could we declare war against in a formal way? An individual, a group of people, a group subscribing to a destructive ideology, a state or province within a nation? Seems to me there has to be territory and an army, otherwise it is something other than war. Wars against abstractions don't seem to work out very well (e.g. the war against poverty, the war against terror). Don't forget, we declared war against Germany, not against the Nazis.
IF ISIS has this territory, and all the other stuff you mention, then why not declare war on ISIS? One of the problems the US has always had in this fight going all the way back to the Bush days is trying to "minimize" civilian deaths. Now that it appears Russia has been pissed off by ISIS and I doubt they are as concerned about innocent life, ISIS may have written their own obituary by bombing that plane. I guess we will see. Right now, France may not even be that concerned over innocents. IF it's true that we have killed Jihadi John and the ISIS leader in Libya, then I would say we have more than just a few special ops on the ground. It ain't luck that we get those guys. IT means we have someone pointing lasers telling our bombs what to hit. But back to your original post......Congress does not want their footprint on this fight. They never voted on authorization against ISIS and they say it's because it wasn't specific enough to being to specific, to not trusting Obama, and a zillion other reasons. One thing you and I might both agree on though....even if you don't think Obama has done enough or could do more, I sure do not want Congress running our foreign policy. Personally I have problem with France's idea of having a US, France, Russia coalition, but the bottom line is other than the Kurds, who will supply the ground force. Iraq is worthless to count on them for anything.
Are you saying that you agree with me, that we ought to consider ISIS a nation and declare war? Of course, only Congress can declare war, and you don't think they would do it. But I think they would if the president announced that we are now recognizing ISIS as a national entity that's sending its agents into other nations with the intent of wreaking havoc--especially if he provided a clear overview of the strategy and it was supported by the military. Some military leaders are saying that we could put ISIS out of business in a couple of weeks if we wanted to. I say, let's get on with it and get this over with. And I don't think anyone thinks Congress should run our foreign policy, but it does have a constitutional role in authorization, oversight, and funding.
NO, I don't agree with you. Unfortunately, the land they possess in all rights and intent belong to Syria and Iraq. My point was to declare war you don't have to necessarily have it be a recognized country you declare it on. You may defeat the army through warfare, but you won't defeat the ideology through warfare. Muslim countries have to change the ideology and I don't see them doing that in my lifetime.
If we didn't declare war on the Islamic State, what would we declare war on? The ISIS army? The ISIS caliphate? The city of Raqqa? I'm serious. What would be our options for a declaration of war? Of course, the objective would not be to stamp out the Islamic ideology; it would be to contain its adherents, perhaps persuading those in other parts of the world that they should give up the Muhammadan theology of Islamic world domination. We simply need to follow the model of Charles 'the Hammer' Martel.
When we declared war on Germany it was a very short declaration saying the Government of Germany. I would just substitute ISIS where it says Gov. of Germany. Nothing stops you from doing that other than a dysfunctional congress and a POTUS who would probably not agree to it. There was nothing in the WW2 declaration stating geographic boundaries. Remembering my youth I would watch Desert Rats in Africa fight the Germans and Combat in Europe fighting the Germans. Just my thought, but not something I would like to see happen.
Bottom line is sure with our ground troops we could defeat the ISIS army, but at what cost. IF the Muslim states over there do not back us, it would be a fools errand. Iraq sure didn't go very well. Even the "good guys" over there hate us for the most part. How would we pay for another war? Borrow the money and then raise hell about debt all over again. Republicans all signed a pledge not to raise taxes, so I don't see a tax increase to pay for it.
NO easy answers. Glad I decided not to run for Prez.
That's exactly what I have said, Tom. We declare war against the Islamic State and fight them wherever we find them. The boundaries of the IS are not as clearly defined as they were for Germany, but I would say we could roughly define the boundaries, thereby establishing the primary theater of operations. Everything within it would be fair game. We could even re-establish the old Allied Forces consisting of the UK, France, and Russia. At this point I'm pretty certain they would all buy in if we laid out a coherent strategy and went for a quick victory. They key is overwhelming force.
Frankly, I could care less if the Shiite leaders of Iraq and Syria don't like it. They are irrelevancies. We would be fighting for western civilization; not Sunni hegemony. Also, Bush 41 and Lawrence of Arabia both showed that Muslims can be persuaded to fight against other Muslims. If we take the lead and guarantee to back all participants, I'm certain Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would get on board (though Turkey is a bit of an enigma these days).
So make me president and this will be the first order of business. It will be quick, thorough, and as painless as possible.
you think Saudi. Heck, they're helping with the ISIS funding. Ok Mr. President. How do we pay for all this?
There is no way the Saudi royal family wants ISIS as a long-term power broker in their neck of the woods.
The cost would not be so high if we do it quickly using overwhelming force. But whatever the cost, it would be shared by the allies. The real question, however, is not, "What will it cost? It is, "What will the cost be if we don't stop these monsters as soon as possible?"
Nope. I want a more definitive answer or you will not get my vote. Iraq was suppose to help pay for that war, yet I don't think that ever materialized. I can't count on anyone in the middle east paying and all of our allies also have their own financial woes. I want to know how Prez Huston will pay for it.
I would pay our share with a one-time war tax.
ok. So we go in and wipe out the ISIS army. Kill or capture their leaders in Syria, Iraq, North Africa. Then what? Also, do we disregard collateral damage. Civilians get in the way of some bullets and bombs, that's just to bad for them? Do we send troops into France and other countries to wipe out the ISIS sympathizers and combatants like those that just shot up Paris, or is that a French problem? You can wipe them out all you want, but that does not mean any country becomes "safer" from terrorists under the ISIS real and ideology. IF the war lingers on longer than you might like, do you legislate conscription?
I can remember back in the last decade many neo cons saying Iraq would be quick, in and out and the people will be kissing our boots. I think they were all proven wrong.
Civilian casualties are an unfortunate consequence of war, but they are not a reason to not engage a serious long-term threat to our security. France is doing well wiping out the ISIS agents in France, but we should certainly be willing to help in whatever way they might request. As far as conscription, it would not be necessary, but if it were, I would do it. As far as wiping them out, I believe it would make the world a much safer place than it is right now. The only thing these people understand, the only thing they respect, the only thing that has ever restrained them since they first marched in 633 AD, is superior military force. I believe a strong demonstration of military might by a coalition of aggrieved nations would stop them in their tracks. After the dust settles, the people there can form whatever kind of government they want, but with the understanding that if there are any more attacks on the West or barbaric executions on TV, we will be back with a second wave. And we will keep coming back until they find a better way to pass the time.
Post a Comment