Skip to main content

Senator Murphy’s Worms

US Senator Chris Murphy might have said simply that the US invasion of Iraq in March, 2003 radicalized enemies of “the Great Satan” – that’s us. At best, this was a half-truth. There is some discussion afoot as to whether George Bush’s largely successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime during a three month war radicalized ISIS. Perhaps ISIS has been radicalized by something else.

Some people, staring at Mr. Murphy from across the political barricades,  assert that the premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq following the war was the precipitating event that gave birth to ISIS’ largely successful advance from Syria to northern Iraq. ISIS, according to this reading of events, simply exploited a military and political weakness issued from President Barack Obama’s “lead from behind” Middle East strategy: When the cat’s away, Islamic terrorists will play. The propriety of the war to dislodge Saddam Hussein has become an
 political briar patch so thick and thorny that it might be wise for reporters to hang over the event the sign posted by Dante on the gates of Hell: “Surrender all hope, ye who enter here.”


Mr. Murphy, seeking to instruct his brethren in the Senate, grabbed hold of a questionable analogy – the “flat worm” simile. Behind the simile stood a man, new to the Senate, the self-proclaimed Moses of the modern progressive movement, who accounted for the rise of ISIS by pointing to Bush’s war in Iraq.

The flat worm, Mr. Murphy said, has an amazing ability to reproduce itself after it has been cut in half.  When Mr. Bush sent US forces to Iraq to rid the country of a man that had in the past used chemical weapons (WMDs) against the Kurds – then and now friendly to the United States – he cut the flat worm in half: That worm has now reproduced itself throughout the Middle East. Elsewhere, Mr. Murphy has warned his colleagues that military solutions to problems in the Middle East are to be avoided, lest the cut worms multiply.

 It should be said here that Mr. Murphy was NOT suggesting Islam itself was wormy; some followers of the prophet, blessings be upon him, do not take kindly to implicit insults.



Applying the Murphy rule to later events, the Senator would have been bound to oppose the assassination of Osama bin Laden, a flat worm of major proportions. Mr. Obama rode the assassination of Mr. bin Laden into office, apparently without giving proper thought to Mr. Murphy’s flat worm thesis.

The proposition “Bush is responsible for the rise of ISIS” is a near perfect example of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. The proposition falls to earth because it fails to take account of succeeding causal events. Chanticleer crows and the sun rises; therefore the crowing has caused the sun to rise. Actually, we know that the sun, a stationary body, only appears to rise; but even if it did rise, Chanticleer’s crowing cannot be the precipitating cause of the apparent rise. Not only is Mr. Murphy’s politically expedient proposition wrong-headed; it leads to a strategic polity that cannot be useful, based as it is on a false premise that seriously distorts the principal motivation of ISIS, which is theo-political.

ISIS recently has beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts, Christians previously kidnapped in Libya. The Islamic State’s Al Hayat Media released a gruesome video record of the decapitations, “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross,” along with a statement: “All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes, especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together. The sea you have hidden Sheikh Usama Bin Laden's body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.” The Islamic State released In November an infomercial-like video tracing its origins to bin Laden. The connection is vital because it is theo-political.

Doctrinally – theo-politically – ISIS identifies with and embraces the jihadist wing of a branch of Sunnism called Salafism, after the Arabic al salaf al salih, the “pious forefathers.” The forefathers , an illuminating piece in The Atlantic points out, “are the Prophet himself and his earliest adherents, whom Salafis honor and emulate as the models for all behavior, including warfare, culture, family life, even dentistry.”

The Atlantic, which one of Mr. Murphy’s comrades in the progressive movement should recommend to him, is not a conservative publication. “What ISIS Really Wants is a masterful presentation. ISIS is prophetic, apocalyptic, patient, and borderless – because the caliphate necessary to its survival as a theo-political force is simply the place in northern Iraq in which the caliph resides and calls to himself armies of faithful believers. The Caliphate is “not just a political entity but also a vehicle for salvation.” We already know that ISIS “rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.” 

And we – with the possible exception of Mr. Murphy – know what has to be done to defeat it. It must be driven out of northern Iraq and destroyed in such a way that ISIS itself will know it has been destroyed. It cannot be diplomacized to death.   


Comments

Daria Novak said…
A well-written piece! We cannot forget,however, that Saudi Arabia helped fund ISIS early on, as the Soviets once funded the Taliban. Both became monsters that we must face down and defeat. Most Americans have little understanding of the history of this region and the complexities of British, American, Soviet (now Russian), Chinese, and other states' involvement
peter brush said…
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.
--------------
"This marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya who now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

Obama made clear he considered Gaddafi's death a validation of his "leading from behind" strategy that had drawn criticism at home for casting the United States in a support role in the NATO air assault in Libya.
------------
I think I can probably agree with Senator Murphy to the extent that it is certainly true that the power vacuum left in Iraq when Obama insisted on pulling the troops out wouldn't have occurred if the U.S. hadn't removed Saddam and his Baathist regime a decade ago. So, why did Baraq Hussein O. pull the troops out without regard for the probable consequences, and without regard for the impact those consequences would have on the people of Iraq? It was because he, like Senator Murphy, is ideologically opposed to American hegemony based in military power. They didn't want to go in, and they flatter themselves that they did the reasonable, ethical Nobel-peaceful sort of thing by pulling out willy-nilly.
But, if we are to blame for the power vacuum in Iraq, are we not equally, if not more so, to blame for the vacuum currently existing in Libya? Obama seems to think that because we were "leading from behind" we can claim credit for anything apparently benign that resulted from overthrowing Quadafi (a short list), and ignore any unfortunate effects, such as political chaos for the Libyan people and Islamists executing innocent Christians. Not to mention what happened in Benghazi. What difference does that make?
I agree that ISIL will not be stopped without lethal force. I am opposed to Congress giving this Presidente any authority whatsoever beyond that which is already to be found in Article II. (No fast-track trade authority) No explicit Congressional authorization to use force against ISIL. He is completely untrustworthy and operates in bad faith.
Don Pesci said…
Precisely. Using terms the left would understand, Libya is Obama's Iraq. More than that, it's the more interesting uncovered news story. Also, the new Congressional authorization Obama is seeking would leave the next president -- there will be one -- with fewer options than the present arrangement. Obama has all the congressional authority he needs under current authorization to drive ISIS back into Syria, where it would quickly become Iran and Putin's problem. This is a president who has never met a real crisis -- as opposed to a manufactured one -- he could not screw up.
peter brush said…
Murphy sponsors bill that would restrict White House’s war-making powers
-----------------
On the other hand, I'm not in favor of this sort of management of the President, such as he may be. Senator Murphy should look for some other way to demonstrate that he's spent several years in college and law school. He's not the right color to get a Nobel Prize for mere posturing.
Mark said…
Our junior senator lacks sophistication and an appreciation of nuance so one would not expect him to have a thoughtful take on ISIS. Yes, the original Bush intervention had a role. But let's not forget that Obama declared Iraq a success and under control in 2011 when he announced our withdrawal in other words, whatever chaos occurred under Bush's watch was repaired under Obama's- at least according to President Obama, and who would know better?

Furthermore ISIS first arose in Syria, not Iraq. It was an outcome of the Arab Spring revolt against Assad, an event much welcomed by the Obama Administration (though perhaps not as much by Pelosi and Kerry who had lauded Mr Assad in the past). But then again, wasn't ISIS the JV team?

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p