Bombing ISIS is the moral thing to do. That’s true even if the Obama Administration orders it. That’s true even if the current situation came about as a result of President Obama’s past indecision or of his reluctance to leave American troops in Iraq. That’s true even if the current situation is ultimately due to the Bush Administration’s failed policies.
Invading Iraq to destroy the butcher Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do even if it did not turn out well. Incidentally, the invasion of Iraq was approved 297 to 133 (House) and 77 to 23 (Senate). I think that’s enough to have made it legal.
ISIS needs killing like no one in my living memory. The peaceful Kurdish entity is worth saving even if the rest of Iraq crumbles. It’s intolerable for the civilized to stand by while ISIS is slaughtering the defenseless religious minorities within its reach.The ISIS terrorists would need killing even if they had done none of the above.
The word “Caliphate” ISIS has adopted contains a political program of aggression toward the Infidels. That includes us and Europe. ISIS will attack us as soon as it can unless it’s reduced by military action to the handful of bandits and fanatics they were when they started. It’s easier to do it now than it will be tomorrow, much easier than the day after tomorrow.
I know I am repeating myself. Some things need repeating. Many people are too distracted by daily life to remember well even the obvious.
Indecent Stories for Decent Women: Fiction by John René Adolph, a Man (2017)
Les pumas de grande banlieue: histoires d'émigration (2014)
I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography (2014)
FACTS MATTER 
Now you are just lying to yourself (I doubt even your fluffers believe you, on this issue, at this point). Bush’s illegal war was a disaster, not a civilizing mission that “did not turn out well.” Illegally invading and occupying Iraq created ISIS. Now Jacques and Hillary Clinton and John McCain want the US to bomb ISIS as they did the secular Ba’athists.
There is a common saying in the US that I think is worth repeating here: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” Governments cannot socially engineer their own people without catastrophic consequences, to say nothing of attempting the same on foreign peoples.
I left a comment for David that offers a way forward in Iraq. I hope your readers will pay close attention to it.
I think in this matter your personal vision of the world steers the course. (As always.) I’m going to differentiate 2 sides called (simply for labeling) “planet America” and “planet Earth”.
If you reside in “planet America”, then World War 2 and the Cold War essentially took care of everything. Now, within our country, life is good. There is no conflict that truly interferes with daily life except to make interesting news. We are free to do mostly as we please, and the rest of the world should be left to itself to pursue whatever it is they wish.
By the way, I like your “response to David” plan Brandon, but as I read it it seems to rely on terrorists not acting like terrorists and happily settling for a small slice of the Earth and some trade agreements as opposed to fulfilling their stated quest to rule the planet.
Which brings me to camp number two, “planet Earth”. In this view, the building of America and Democracy and proving of its mettle through war to achieve relative peace and freedom on this continent were just the beginning. In this view, we are building something more, something that extends beyond our borders to all of humanity.
Yes, it could be seen as our own proclaimed conquest of the globe, spreading freedoms to lands that would not have it. This war is still very much alive and being fought.
The difference between the two views? I have not met a soul who would choose the Middle East over America. We are onto something here. Others on this planet deserve it, those who would deny them do not. To watch other humans die is to watch family die, and that’s not the Earth I want for the future.
McHenry,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My main quibble is with this excerpt:
This is not quite true. There are two kinds of terrorists in the world: state-sponsored terrorists (like Hizbullah) and stateless terrorists (like ISIS and al-Qaeda). The line between the two types is often blurry, but such a line exists nonetheless.
State-sponsored terrorist groups have been in decline for decades, while stateless terrorists have been flourishing (especially after the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the short-sighted bombing campaign in Libya). Creating news states out of the ashes of an Iraq would make ISIS a de facto army. Armies are much easier to fight and destroy than stateless terrorist organizations.
I also point out that recognizing an independent ISIS would place heavy burdens on the shoulders of its leaders. They would be forced to govern rather than left free to kill.
Well, I’ve been banned from the blog again (Dr J hates dissent; he quit a group blog because people stopped taking his straw men seriously) but I do hope you keep reading him all the same. When he is not advocating Bombs For Peace he is very clairvoyant and you can learn a lot from him.
I’m not sure I agree. Hamas seems to be a tough group to nail down even though they are both terrorists and government. They make no effort to preserve their civilians and resort to guerrilla tactics and tunnels. While they shoot missiles during cease fires, I wonder why Palestinians continue to tolerate them.
I think these are people of a different sort, so different that the rules through which we would view the world do not apply. Stupidly enough, it reminds me of a quote from Batman, “some me just want to watch the world burn.”
Anyway, I don’t think this discussion matters much after yesterday’s Foley beheading. That aught to be more than enough to get the tanks rolling. Which I’d be happy to see.
Quote should read “some men just want….”
Hamas has attempted to be a government, but the West has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian elections since Hamas began participating (and winning) in elections.
Facts matter, and so does dialogue. This is something that the four commentators on here are often loathe to remember.
Interesting take, McHenry. And anyone who characterizes any action to spread freedom as a conquest is simply a liar. There are many liars, around us; that does not make them any the less liars. As a fervent reader of my book, I Used to Be French…, you realize, of course, that I was an early victim of American imperialism (“conquest”). That was in 1944, the bastard Americans saved me from the delights of the Nazi occupation of France.
Fortunately, you are mistaken to a significant extent about Planet Earth. Thanks largely to American protection, there are now many countries where life is as good as or better than in the US. Many more offer decent living conditions and day-today freedom. One reason to hate the ISIS terrorists and other violent jihadists is their declared intent to wreck the unprecedented level of human happiness many people have achieved. One might even begin by looking at “traditional” Muslim women sweltering in thick clothing while their husbands, fathers and brothers wear short sleeve shirts. I would not make even my ex-wife wear this kind of outfit in the heat.
Brandon: Go away, you are boring as well as vulgar.
As you wish, though the lack of views on this blog – especially compared to Notes On Liberty as of late – suggests that someone other than me is the boring and vulgar one.
Good luck with your quest to convince foreign people of the benefits that come with occupation, and I wish you even more luck convincing young Americans of the benefits that come from occupying foreign lands.
By the way, your WW2 example is stale. France was occupied by Germany, and Germany had declared war on the US (hence the bombs). War between two industrial powers is very different from imperial occupation and social engineering.
Notes on Liberty is very good. I already recommended it.
Historical correction of huge importance: The extremist Brandon Christensen is not banned from this rational blog. I am just announcing that I will not be baited into responding to his every little inconsequential, counterfactual, ill-informed, and boring argument. In general, I have lost my patience with extremist libertarians like him. This, for a small number of reasons. The main reason is that I am unable to get them to answer responsibly and honestly any question on self-defense. Of course “responsibly” is a subjective term. This is not a court of law but a small blog. I can use what standards I want. I am always glad to explain my standards. If I think someone is dishonest, I send him packing. Again, this is not a court of law. Readers will judge. It’s not as if they had no choice.
Brandon: go away, or stay, or come by for occasional drive-by verbalization. Or better, go to school.
I find it funny that I’ve been labeled “an extremist” on a blog that has stooped to using “righteousness” and “morality” to bolster its arguments.
For the record, here is Dr J, in 2011, predicting roses and democracy for Libya by 2013:
When his predictions failed to materialize, Dr J changed the subject. All those “little inconsequential, counterfactual, ill-informed, and boring arguments” of mine tend to dump water all over the dreams of chicken hawks.
That’s why they resort to religious undertones to make their arguments, or simply stop arguing and start name-calling.
brandon,
the primary flaw in your logic regarding splitting iraq/syria into smaller entities that would then be recognized as nations is that it presupposes that isis would start acting like a nation with an identifiable army. there is no reason to presuppose that they would based on their current behavior. secondarily, it would also require that isis not take over the other regions that would become neighboring states, also highly unlikely given their current methods of “persuasion.”
David,
Thanks for the lecture in logic. Unfortunately, your lecture is as bad as your logic. Just a couple of things: 1) A ‘nation’ is very different from a ‘state’. You are confused on this point and I don’t think you are worth the effort it would take to explain it. Luckily, I have already done so, and you don’t even have to leave Dr J’s parochial blog to do it (I know how suspicious conservatives get when it comes to reading something that does not come from canon).
2) ISIS is an acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. There is an entire political philosophy behind the notion of an Islamic state, and it’s one that conservatives have been trying to ignore for seventy years now. The conservative movement’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have made this ignorance much harder to avoid today.
These are two facts you would do well to study and remember if you ever hope to be taken seriously. The rest of your lecture in logic is simply a failure, on your part, to actually comprehend what was written in plain English. It is said that a scholar is only as good as his students, so it would appear that Dr J has morphed into a religious pastor rather than a respectable scholar.