The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has a utopian vision of a community established on its definition of Islamic values. But their community will be like no other the world has seen for well over a millennium. In fact, the community they ultimately want to build seems to be not of this world. For their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, portrays himself as the caliph precursor to that messianic leader (Mahdi) who will lead Muslims to ultimate victory before the end of time. This type of apocalyptic vision is not unusual in world religions. You can find eschatological references in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. Since I am not an Islamic scholar, I cannot comment on the nature of the Muslim afterlife. What I can comment on, however, is the nature of the community they seek to establish in this world. It is a community that seeks to expand beyond all borders and to extend ISIL’s interpretation of Sharia law over all it conquers. This interpretation is not recognizable to contemporary Muslims. For example, ISIL has greatly extended its use of excommunication (takfir). In its most strict application, Sharia law would require a death sentence for any apostate, that is, a Muslim who denies the Koran or the Prophet. But ISIL would dole out the death penalty for many other non-conforming behaviors, to include shaving one’s beard, wearing western clothes, selling alcohol or drugs, voting or participating in a democracy, governing Muslims without the strictest adherence to Sharia law, lacking full-throated support for naming and condemning apostates, or simply being a Shi’ite. The latter sin encompasses over 200 million Shi’a. ISIL’s contention with the Shi’a runs deep. For it believes the anti-Messiah (Daijal) will arise from the eastern regions of Shi’ite Iran and trigger the final battle in Jerusalem where the ISIL caliphate will emerge victorious. Since ultimate victory is preordained, no setback can sway the course of ISIL. Before that last triumph, ISIL interprets the sacred texts to outline another historic victory on the plains of Dabiq (currently a Syrian city under ISIL’s control and the name of ISIL’s magazine) where the “armies of Rome” will be defeated. “Rome” here may be a pseudonym for Istanbul, the seat of the former Ottoman Empire and the last caliphate, or America, the “great Satan.” This projection of America as the “Rome” of modern times is the basis for brutally killing American hostages and constantly tempting the US government to send its armies to fight ISIL. America is being invited to an inevitable defeat at the hands of a preordained ISIL victory. All humanity will then cower to the caliphate and adhere to ISIL’s version of Sharia law. Except for those Christians who accept the caliphate’s authority, possible enslavement, and a special tax (jizya), ISIL will slay any remaining infidels (kuffar). All that will remain in the end is an ISIL community ruled by its caliph and governed by the sacred dictates of the Koran and ISIL’s interpretation of Sharia law.

Before delving further into the nature of ISIL’s prophetic vision of conquest and Islamic utopia, I should note that nearly all Sunni Muslims do not agree with ISIL. In fact, the vast majority of the apostates slaughtered so far by ISIL are Sunni. ISIL considers this genocide necessary to maintain the homogeneity of its community and assure strict obedience and absolute commitment to its world vision. In exchange for this gruesome purge of apostates, ISIL will provide a stable community for its followers, where food, clothing, and healthcare are provided for everyone—and even a job, for those who want to work. The measure of this community is its ongoing conquests and enslavement of the conquered, giving license for its members to fire their weapons in the air, shout with joy, and dance in the streets. The community, then, is defined by its success in battle and the extension of its dominion. Infidels and apostates are the scapegoats for all that hinders or encumbers the community and must be liquidated. As a political philosophy, this type of merciless pursuit of power, domination, and scapegoating is not unfamiliar to the West. It is called fascism. As a social philosophy, it begs the question of what is a community. People forced to live under conditions of strict mandates or be doomed to extermination cannot be reasonably expected to form binding, constructive relations between individuals. The emphasis is on group success in conquest; the individual is immaterial to that end. The governing impetus is fear; the mandated response is absolute obeisance; and the overriding mission is uncompromising preservation of the status quo. An actual community, by contrast, is alive with creative energy where its members actively engage with each other in the development of new art forms, progressive education, and the evolution of support systems and a culture that better serve its general welfare. Amassing people into a closed, oppressive system is not unlike collecting animals for the cages in a zoo. ISIL does not provide for a community, but a collective.

Living a life of strict orthodoxy can be fulfilling if its adherence to rules and ritual is a willing engagement with the inspiration behind those rules and rituals. Out of a period of persecution, Mohammed established a community (the Ummah) governed by a system of jurisprudence to secure the peace and prosperity of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and pagans. Its initial inspiration was for racial equality, religious freedom, uniform enforcement of the law, protection of women, and the preservation of the community. How could anybody identify these founding principles with the ISIL community? It is possible, however, for ISIL to justify its murderous ways from sacred texts written in ancient times. Taken out of historical context and interpreted literally, these texts, like elements of the Christian bible, could be quoted by the devil himself. It is true that Mohammed fought wars ruthlessly to secure the Moslem community. But his community was inclusive and founded on principles of mutual respect and compassion. He also said, if you will forgive my paraphrase, to murder another is to murder one’s self. In another blog (reference “Tempered Reactions to Paris Massacres”), I stated that there is no such thing as a religious terrorist. What I meant did not exclude a terrorist from using a faux religion to justify terrorism. Religion is not and cannot be merely a set of prescriptions that separates humanity into warring camps. Instead, all the great world religions provide signposts to a transcendent experience that brings us in harmony with the ground of our being and with each other. ISIL may be religious in the sense that it clothes itself in the words of the Koran, but it is not a religion. For example, its concept of martyrdom, the suicide bomber who slaughters infidels and apostates, is not a gateway to everlasting bliss, but a meaningless annihilation of being and the spiritual essence of the so-called martyr. By contrast, Jesus Christ, considered a great prophet in the Islamic tradition, gave his life to protect his disciples, not to kill those opposed to him. He died for love of others. All the world religions have love of others or the golden rule of doing no harm as a centerpiece of their belief systems. What ISIL proposes as religion is actually anti-religious. Let’s review its primary proposals. It vindicates its mission based upon past injustices such as the crusades, colonialism and despotic leaders supported by the West. It inspires its followers with the promise of a utopian community under the auspices of Allah. It advocates the establishment of this new community with an urgency emanating from an eminent apocalypse. And so we have an ISIL community born of vengeance and inspired by millenarian fantasy. Its enemy is the past; its future, a new world order—ultimately one not of this world. What is missing in this new community is the present, the world we currently inhabit for which we are communally responsible.

As an American, my analysis is naturally biased. The founding principles of this country were derived after the religious wars of Europe and were based on the principles inspired by the Enlightenment and natural law. The separation of church and state is fundamental to these principles, thereby guaranteeing the ability to practice any religion, free of government interference. On our streets, we can see the hijab, the cassock, the Sikh headdress, or the shaved head of a Buddhist monk. Every American is free to choose a faith and to follow his/her own path to Self-awareness and to the mysteries of life, while governance is left to a common wisdom born of the rational capacity in every citizen. (I could mischievously exempt certain politicians who seem to foreswear common sense in lieu of a voting constituency, campaign donors, and/or lobbyists.) When Mohammed established the rule of religious tolerance, he was recognizing something that is basic to the nature of religion: every human shares the experience of self-awareness and of its transcendent nature. That experience opens us to the mystery of our existence—to God and to each other. It is also at the core of our sense of community—why we feel connected, why we help one another in our daily interactions. Even philosophers, who swear allegiance to no specific religion, attribute human altruism (even Kant’s moral imperative) to an inherent religious impetus. Religion, therefore, cannot be vengeance for past actions or violence perpetrated for future glory. The former is the justification for fascism; the latter is the inspiration of fanaticism.

The seeds planted by ISIL are poisonous not only to its adversaries, but to itself. Of course, ISIL cannot see the root of its own demise. It believes it cannot be bombed out of existence, for any military confrontation serves only to justify its mission. By some estimates, the number of ISIL fighters killed in battle each month is replenished by an equal number of new recruits. Also, it cannot be put down in debate. Its followers are unable to engage in any dialogue for they simply turn a deaf ear to the infidel or apostate whom they consider a non-person. What ISIL cannot do, however, is to create a vibrant community or justify its existence on rational or religious grounds. Brute force cannot create, but only compel. Herein is the fruit of ISIL’ self-immolation, its destructive destiny. So what can the rest of the world do, other than to watch its eventual collapse from within?

Today, the Middle East is a cauldron of suffering masses. Taking the long view of history, we might yet witness the emergence of one of those breakthrough moments, when communities, even civilizations, have suddenly awakened to a new reality. Such breakthroughs have resulted in revolutions, social reconstructions, or a significant evolution in the zeitgeist of an era. It is clear that the Middle East in general is on the verge of such a breakthrough. ISIL is but a cancer that has opportunistically grown out of the civil unrest that exists in both Syria and Iraq. Both of these countries governed inequitably and suppressed large portions of their citizens. In fact, the entire Middle East has writhed with this malady for generations. The Arab “spring” gave voice to this long-suffering. But, if change is on the horizon, it will have to rise from within. ISIL will only prolong the agony. The rest of the world can help indirectly, but not with military intervention or the provision of more deadly armaments. I do have a few personal prescriptions, but they should be taken with an obvious caveat. I am no expert on Middle Eastern diplomacy. Nevertheless, may I offer a few discussion points for the consideration of the more informed:
• In the interest of containing ISIL, shut off its markets for oil and the laundering of money through underground banking.
• In an effort to undercut ISIL’s opportunistic use of tribal antagonism, promote some measure of diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and its Arab Sunni neighbors. A starting point might be with a diplomatic agreement to halt the Houthi rebellion and to negotiate a political compromise for mutual governance in Yemen. Any agreement of this nature could be the precursor to developing some form of common cause against ISIL and an eventual political settlement to the civil unrest in both Syria and Iraq. As long as Iran remains the outlier, not only will there be no joint action, but even the Sunni states will remain largely on the sidelines, allowing Iran to go it alone.
• In order to defuse concerns among the Arab Sunni nations, conclude the Iran nuclear non-proliferation talks as soon as possible and stage a major diplomatic mission to apprise these nations of the security benefits and of the verifiable nature of the resultant agreement. (Of course, this effort depends upon the effectiveness of the final agreement.)
• With the purpose of countering ISIL propaganda, promote the use of social media to refute the historical, religious, and apocalyptic justifications for ISIL’s barbarous, anti-religious actions. The traditional world press has a role to play here as well. An Islamic reformation has been underway since the 7th century, but its nature is hardly referenced in journalistic and broadcast media. The voice of modern Islam has not been heard, largely because Western media has limited its access to the general public as well as to those caught underfoot of ISIL. (Remember what followed Christian persecution, internecine wars of conquest, crusades, and eventual inquisitions were reformation and the ecumenical movement. Islam has long been on this same path.)
• Break the stalemate with Russia over a political settlement in Ukraine. We need Russia to be more constructive in any diplomatic efforts undertaken with Syria or Iran. The Western allies may need to concede some form of local governance in Eastern Ukraine—without admitting Russia’s right to intervene militarily. The government in Kiev has long considered some form of federation, granting more self-governance to eastern Ukraine. More than that concession, the West may have to admit its hand in slighting Russia since the end of the Cold War. Two facts are relevant here: first, the West is guilty of attempting to isolate Russia financially and of allowing NATO’s extension to its borders; second and more relevant here, China supports the Russian position and its actions in Ukraine. This last fact is relevant because we need China, as well as Russia, not only in the “five plus one” nuclear agreement with Iran but also in any constructive diplomatic discussions with the nations of the Middle East. China is now a large importer of Middle Eastern Oil and a growing influence in that region.
• Pressure the government in Bagdad to offer more self-government to the Sunni minority now under the control of ISIL. In order to make this offer real, it might be required to reform the Iraq constitution to form a three state confederacy composed of the three major political factions of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a. Under this constitution, the “federal” government would be responsible for recruiting and managing a common military defense force, for securing the civil rights of all citizens, and for sharing resources equitably among the states, including the disbursement of income derived from oil. This political framework was once suggested by the Vice President and rejected at the time for lack of support both within the government in Bagdad and the U. S. Administration. Perhaps now is the right time to re-introduce this framework for governing those pseudo states that are drifting further apart with every ISIL victory or incursion into Sunni territory. Soon it will be too late to win back the Iraqi Sunnis.
• And, finally, we need to tighten our security net against terrorism, starting in Europe where are intelligence support is vital both to Europe and to extending our security as far as possible from our own borders.

It remains to be seen how relevant any of these prescriptions may be. The future is as uncertain as the outcome of the “hundred years” war or the Christian reformation. But ISIL will eventually decay from within. There is no grand strategy to defeat an idea, other than its own refutation. ISIL’s grand idea is dead on arrival, for it is not a vision of a community blessed by Allah and preordained for world conquest. Instead, it is humanity’s nightmare: a vision of dystopia.

According to news reports, commentaries, and “expert” testimonies, the Obama Administration lacks an overall strategy for dealing with the crises in the Middle East. Further, the Administration finds itself on all sides of the various conflicts in that region: America is providing air support for Iranians fighting ISIL in Iraq and conducting a Syrian bombing campaign against the same ISIL that Iran’s ally, Assad, is fighting; at the same time, America is providing “military and intelligence” support to Saudi Arabia while it bombs the Houthi rebels who are armed and supported by Iran. What is even more confusing is the fact that the Houthis vow to eliminate al Qaeda in Yemen, the very terrorist group that our State Department has identified as the most serious threat to the homeland. And our incidental support of Assad works against our stated policy that Assad’s regime must end. While America intervenes in these Middle East conflicts, terrorists groups in North and Central Africa have begun to pledge allegiance to ISIL. And these interventions further complicate our nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with Iran. It appears obvious that the Administration is clueless in direction, without an overall strategy or any promise of a viable outcome. Or so it seems.

Furthermore, critics have blamed the Administration for not supporting the Free Syrian Army sooner and for removing our troops from Iraq too soon. These apparently strategic and obviously tactical failures, they claim, would have precluded ISIL’s success both in Syria and in Iraq. If only the Administration had acted at the most opportune time, it would not be faced with the problem ISIL now presents. Or so it seems.

But what seems to be common wisdom can be questioned. History provides us some context for asking the right questions. For example, how do you pick a viable rebel group amidst a plethora of Syrian factions? What we have seen is internecine battles and much changing of sides between these various factions. Even Senator McCain, one of the Administration’s most vocal critics, had difficulty identifying potential allies in Syria several years ago. He thought he was posing for a picture with leaders of the Free Syrian Army, thereby demonstrating visible proof of potential allies. But one of the subjects in that picture was a known member of one of the most violent terrorist groups in Syria. Further, it should be noted, that we faced a similar choice in Vietnam when we chose our potential ally out of a line-up of miscreants. Our choice was Diem, the leader of a suspect minority that not only created a corrupt government but also contributed to its own lack of public support and eventual collapse. Do we really know enough about the internal policies and affairs in a foreign country to choose the one group of insurgents that will guarantee the outcome we desire? History would seem to suggest otherwise. (Remember we supported the Taliban before they became our sworn enemy.) But perhaps ISIL’s invasion of Iraq could at least have been avoided if only we had left American troops there. Without a doubt, our troop presence in Europe and South Korea has long contributed to peace for our NATO allies and South Korea. However, once again history intervenes—not with a suggestion, but with reality. A troop withdrawal date had been previously established between the US and Iraq; and its Shiite President refused to renegotiate an extension of that date. The argument that the Administration did not adequately enforce its negotiating position may be legitimate. But nobody party to that negotiation has ever made that case.

Nevertheless, our apparent lack of an overall Middle East strategy, military or otherwise, seems to be obvious. Are we really adrift without a paddle? Or do we once again find ourselves drawn into that deadly whirlpool with the same paddle we have used in the past? For many years we supported Middle East dictators who “kept the peace” by suppressing militant groups. Former Egyptian President Mubarak made this exact point when we urged him to step down. We thought we were acting on “the right side of history.” But now, I believe, we are returning to the previous policy of containment and status quo. The circumstances may be different, but consider the similarity in the Administration’s apparent objectives. The US is supporting Iran and Iraq against a militant ISIL in Iraq, assisting Saudi Arabia against a militant Houthi uprising in Yemen, and bombing a very militant ISIL in Assad’s Syria. Are we then aligned with the goals of Iraq’s Shiite leadership that still suppresses the Sunni minority, with Saudi Arabia’s proliferation of radical Islamic fundamentalism and suppression of Shiite minorities both within and without its borders, or with Assad’s tyrannical suppression of any political opposition? The answer is an obvious “no.” But we ARE against the forces of insurgency. For much of our history in the Middle East, we have shaken the dirty hands of dictators and tyrants who have suppressed potential insurgencies. Consider the results when we have not followed this course: our support for the Shah’s overthrow of his predecessor led to the Iranian revolution, decades of theocratic dictatorship, and Iranian support of insurgent groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and now Yemen; our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein opened the door for al Qaeda, the birth of ISIL, the suppression of the Sunni minority, and internecine sectarian violence; our bombing of Libya not only hastened the fall of Qaddafi but led to the chaos of multiple militant groups, all battling for supremacy and control of the state. This enumeration of America trying to be on the “right side of history” may explain the reemergence of our decades-old policy of supporting the parties in power over the potential chaos of militant insurgents. It appears that we are willing to bomb Assad’s enemies, prop up a sectarian government in Iraq, and restore the Yemen government for just one purpose—to suppress militant insurgencies, whether ISIL or Houthi—whether Sunni or Shiite. Having consistently failed to make the Middle East conform to its goals for the region, America seems compelled to fall back on a policy of containment that relies on oppressive regimes to quell violent insurgencies.

I wonder why nobody else has posited the possibility that there is this inchoate and regressive coherence to the Administration’s policy. Could it be that it is simply easier to criticize than to analyze? If so, allow me to extend my limited perspective to analysis. I think the key to understanding what is happening in the Middle East is Iran. Without Iran and Russia, Assad would not be able to hold onto power. Without Iran, the Houthi could not threaten the overthrow of the Yemeni government. Without Iran, Iraq would not be able to hold its ground against ISIL. Without Iran, Hezbollah could never have risen to ascendancy in Lebanon. Without Iran, the Palestinians would never have had the rockets they hurled at Israel. Without Iran, the Shiites in Bahrain could not have staged a rebellion that only Saudi Arabia’s military intervention could squelch. Iran’s ambitions are driving the course of history in the Middle East. Even its willingness to negotiate the progress of its nuclear program can be seen within the scope of its ambitions. They want to be freed from economic sanctions so that they can continue to finance their growing hegemony and supremacy in the region. Even if the US and its allies are successful in negotiating a verifiable halt to Iran’s capability to build a bomb, Iran will not only be freed of economic sanctions, but will still have a nuclear infrastructure with breakout capability to build a bomb within a specific period of time—perhaps a year as has been intimated. If negotiations fail, Iran will undoubtedly fast-track its nuclear program and will further intimidate its neighboring states. The present course Iran has taken is one that could lead to war, with or without a nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

Once again, we should look to history, specifically European history. There was a reason why very famous European diplomats attempted to maintain a balance of power. That balance was the only way they could contain national ambitions and preserve the peace. In the Middle East, the balance of power is shifting. Neither Europe nor the United States is interested in colonizing or occupying territory there. Those prior actions have been tried to no avail and have only served to stir the snake pit. The only possibility of a regional counterweight to Iran is Egypt and/or Turkey. Recently, Egypt has shown a willingness to intervene in Libya and to assist Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Turkey has been very reticent to intervene, even with the Syrian turmoil on its immediate border. Nevertheless, as I write this article, the Arab states are in the process of forming a joint military task force. War may be eminent and perhaps inevitable, for Iran may be more vulnerable now than hereafter. Currently, they are under the weight of severe economic sanction and without a nuclear deterrent. Should the nuclear negotiations fail to reach an agreement, both Israel and our Arab allies would be looking anxiously at the American President to authorize bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But that act could be the tipping point leading to an all-out war. The time bomb is ticking.

And the war I am implying might not be strictly a regional affair. Remember Europe, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world is dependent upon the flow of Saudi Arabian oil. Most of our interventions in the Middle East have been directly or indirectly dictated by the need to protect that flow for the sake of the world economy. Could America be once again pulled into another Middle Eastern war? Congress seems ambivalent. The President has stated “that all options are on the table” should the nuclear negotiations fail to reach a verifiable agreement. Given who sits in the White House, I think it is likely every possible diplomatic measure will be taken to prevent a catastrophic regional war and, more specifically, America’s involvement in the frontlines of such a war. But it is well past the time for Congress to play a more constructive part. And we may be drawing close to the time for a Presidential address to the nation. Our stance is not unlike America’s before Pearl Harbor. However unlikely an attack on the homeland might be, we do have formal alliances with possible participants in a Middle East conflagration.

America is sinking back into a Middle East foreign policy that attempts to appease the world’s anxiety about the supply of oil while risking the anger of Moslem populations regarding the “Great Satan’s” support of oppressive regimes. And Western nations seem much less willing to use their military to remove Assad, stymy Iran’s regional hegemony or nuclear ambitions, or curtail the Saudi Monarch from exporting radicalism or quelling Shiite rebellions in neighboring countries. The Middle East is now sufficiently armed by the West to carry out its self-destruction on its own. For that part of the world, these may indeed be the worst of times. What lies ahead cannot be predicted: be it tribal warfare, religious strife, genocide, Islamic reformation, proxy wars, or whatever. Europe has seen it all in its own evolution. We are now privy to a possible reprise in the Middle East. Given formal alliances and the world’s commercial ties with the region, will a greater catastrophe be avoided?

World wars have started with even less provocation. Remember Sarajevo.

Nobody questions America’s involvement in the last World War. The justification is capsulized in two words: Pearl Harbor. However, since that war, the prerequisites for American military interventions or wars have been quite nuanced. Now we are faced with another ambiguous challenge in ISIL. The questions this challenge raises begin with the nature of ISIL’s threat and the Constitutional limitations of the President to engage Americans in a warlike intervention of any kind. The latter has historical precedent that is indeed prologue to contemporary times.

When Thomas Jefferson received a copy of the proposed constitutional articles concerning Presidential power, he cautioned James Madison, his trans-Atlantic interlocutor and fellow Virginian, with his concern that the President would have more power to wage war than the King of England. Since his communication with Madison was long distance (he was the American Ambassador in France at the time), it did not presume a timely response. Anticipating a fit accompli, he somewhat mollified his reply by supporting George Washington as the first American President, a man universally trusted. Perhaps, if he had been in Philadelphia that summer, he would have limited the President’s war powers. But if he had done so, he would never have been able to wage war against the Ivory Coast during his own Presidency years later. He ordered that attack without conferring with Congress. In fact, when he finally divulged his decision thirty days after the war, he explained that he had acted to protect American ships in oceans around the world from Ivory Coast pirates. American warships had rained shells on coastal cities in North Africa just like our drones today rain rockets on potential terrorists in Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria.

A key factor for Jefferson’s support of our first Commander-in-Chief’s power was trust. It must be noted that a President is not elected by a single partisan district or state, but by the entire country. His or her exercise of military power must have the trust and support of a majority of Americans. In order to check the use of American power against this trust barometer, the Constitution bequeaths to the Senate the sole authority to wage war. But, as in Jefferson’s time, there is a vague line of ambiguity between the formal declaration of war and various kinds of possible military interventions. For example, in recent times America has been militarily involved in various campaigns such as Iran (1980, 1987-88), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-present), Somalia (1992-93, 2007-present), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-present), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-present), Pakistan (2004-present), Syria (2014-present) and many more military interventions within our own hemisphere. Ask yourself how many of these interventions have been sanctioned by the American people and its elected Congress. For the most part, most Americans are oblivious and Congress, obsequious in its funding support.

Our current President has not preemptively invaded another country, though he has engaged our military in various forms of interventions with his use of air power, drones, limited Special Forces’ rescue or assassination/capture missions. While these interventions have been targeted against non-existential threats, he has used diplomacy and economic sanctions against more serious threats to global security. In other words, his foreign policy seems to distinguish between nuclear or potential nuclear powers such as North Korea, Russia, and Iran and terrorists cults or criminally induced fanatics such as ISIL or Al Qaeda. Given America’s recent war history, this President’s foreign policy, especially as it concerns the use of our military, deserves to be debated in Congress and properly vetted. He has asked as much and, I believe, wants to gain not just bipartisan support but the trust of the American people.

As Jefferson acknowledged, the American President has enormous power as Commander-in-Chief. So any debate must not be afraid to speak truth to power. What we Americans do not want is opposing arguments invoked to gain power at the expense of truth. There are sane, reasonable Senators in Washington who need to speak their mind instead of the dictates of Party leadership. When America opts to kill people in its own interest, there needs to be a clear definition of the threat and of the measured use of appropriate force. ISIL, for example, has no air force and no means to threaten the American homeland except through the instigation of criminal and marginalized individuals. This form of terrorism is not a homeland insurgency and is very unlikely to match the criminal incidents already incurred daily in our major cities. Surely we need to stop its incursion at our borders, to work in concert with other nations to prevent its spread, and to protect our citizens in jeopardy around the world. The threat is real and clearly falls within the scope of response undertaken by past Presidents.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you already suspect how much I dislike war. Both those who are conscripted to fight and those caught in the crossfire suffer. In addition, war’s impact persists long after the bullets stop flying not only for the survivors but also for the nation states affected. War has unintended consequences. Iraq is a prime example: our occupation policies alienated a third of Iraq and gave birth to ISIL; the weapons we supplied to an inept and disloyal army are now being used against the factions we support; and the Western style democracy we attempted to infuse in Iraq is now the staggering prop of a failing state. The question we never asked ourselves before attempting to democratize Iraq was how to relate to a nation and a people whose history and context we so little understood. As a fictional character from the Vietnam War explained to an American soldier, “Eventually you will learn that you cannot fight ideologies with weapons and that you can only promote democracy in the world by supporting democratic institutions and the right of people to find their own path to freedom” (reference “The Vung Tau Trip,” in A Culpable Innocence). In the end, war is the detritus of our failure to relate to each other.
(For the context of the above quote, click here.)