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.”
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.
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
"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.
-----------------
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.
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?