Caspar's Ghost

We are not about to send American boys … to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.  Lyndon Johnson 1964

As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.  Barack Obama 2014

In the early 1980’s with the Pentagon still reeling from Vietnam and the catastrophic intervention in Lebanon, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger articulated guidelines for when it is appropriate for the United States to use military force.  The general principles were that force is appropriate:

1. If a vital interest of the United States or a U.S. ally is threatened.

2. If there is total support, that is that sufficient resources and manpower to complete the mission.

3. If U.S. forces are given clearly defined political and military objectives and be must be large enough to be able to achieve these objectives.

4. If there is a continual assessment between the commitment and capability of U.S. forces and the objectives.

5.  If there are reasonable assurances that the American people and their elected representatives support such a commitment.

6. If the commitment of U.S. forces to combat is the last resort.

Prior to the Gulf War the doctrine was adopted and amended by Colin Powell who added the concepts that we should have a plausible exit strategy and that we have considered the consequences of our actions. 

No one has formally abandoned the Weinberger Doctrine, and perhaps doctrines should change.  In any event the actions of the President and the Congress in undertaking a “war” against the Islamic State effectively abandons the doctrine on all counts.

I will only list two objections to this war.   First, we are now intending to bomb some groups fighting for one side in Syria, when a year ago we were on the verge of bombing the other side.  People who can’t decide who to bomb shouldn’t bomb anyone.  These are nasty fights in which we have no friends, so attacking enemies is senseless, and the “moderate” rebels are a myth, mercenaries we will arm who will doubtless turn the arms over to our enemies.

This war cannot be won as there is no definition of success against a religious movement.  This group has done nothing to us, and we have no end game - bombs may retake some territory in Iraq and we may destroy our own armaments the Iraqis surrendered to ISIS, but radical Islam will transform into new threats for a long time, and for the time being we should let them fight each other.

The Islamic State

          The Islamic State is…an Islamic state.  What does something need to be a “state”?  Well, I would say that it needs to control a geographic area, to have a military force, to have an executive, legislature and a judiciary, to collect taxes, to provide for common defense and, sadly “to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”.   To deny that the Islamic State is a state is fatuous.  It is what it is.

            And is it Islamic?  Well, they say so – they have named themselves “Islamic”.  They observe the practices of the Koran, run and support mosques in their controlled areas, have imposed the Sha’aria law, receive financial support from Qatar, espouse the same principles as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, are an offshoot of an Al Qaeda franchise, seek to drive out or kill non-Muslims, to fight what they call “apostasy”,  and they are supported by other people who call themselves Muslim. 

            We also believe that the Islamic State is engaged in every kind of horrible crime, mass executions, ethnic cleaning, forced conversions, sale of women captives,  genital mutilation and genocide, all in the name of Islam, as they say.

The facts here are confusing to the establishment, clinging to mantras of the Religion of Peace, so the establishment grasps for The Big Lie.  The Times reports that Laurent Fabius, Foreign Minister of France says that people should not refer to “extremists” in Iraq as the Islamic State, that they “do not represent Islam or a state”.  The President, now apparently the arbiter of what is and what is not Islamic has been on TV going one better that “no religion” could behave like the Islamic State.  Mr. President, you may have to say that but it’s not true.

            I don’t know who “represents” Islam, but these are not 200 guys on a mountaintop.   The Islamic state and their co-religionist Islamists control parts of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mali and a few other countries that don’t come to mind.  This is not proof that all Muslims are evil, but if 10% of the world’s Muslims are in or supporting these groups that comes to 100 million raving homicidal lunatics in the name of Allah which of course will require 7.2 billion virgins for the martyrs.

Like it or not the Islamic State is a state, and it is Islamic and, like it or not it has significant legitimacy in a substantial portion of the Muslim world.  This manifestation of the Religion of Peace is unmasked as a cult of death.