Washington’s
Ruling Class Is Fooling Itself About The Islamic State
Angelo M. Codevilla
The Federalist Sept 19, 2014
Washington's foolish approaches to the
Islamic State will not destroy
them or discourage others from
following in their footsteps.
The American people’s reaction to Muslim thugs of the “Islamic
State” ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you
and me boils down to “let’s destroy these bastards”—which is
common sense. But our ruling class, from President Obama on the Left
to
The Wall Street Journal on the Right, take the
public’s pressure to do this as another occasion for further
indulging their longtime preferences, prejudices, and proclivities
for half-measures in foreign affairs—the very things that have
invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on
Americans.
This indulgence so overwhelms our ruling class’s perception of
reality that the recipes put forth by its several wings, little
different from one another,
are identical in the one
essential respect: none of them involve any plans which, if carried
out, would destroy the Islamic State, kill large numbers of the
cut-throats, and discourage others from following in their footsteps.
Hence, like the George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and for the
same reasons, this exercise of our ruling class’s wisdom in foreign
affairs will decrease respect for us while invigorating our enemies.
The WSJ’s recommendations, like the Obama administration’s
projected activities, are all about discrete measures—some air
strikes, some arming of local forces, etc. But they abstract from the
fundamental reality of any and all activities: He who wills any end
must will the means to achieve it. As in Bush’s war, as is the
custom in Washington nowadays, our ruling class’s several sectors
decide what actions they feel comfortable undertaking about any given
problem, while avoiding reasonable judgment about whether these
actions will actually fix the problem. This is the very definition of
irresponsibility. But they call it “strategy.”
Irresponsibly Avoiding Debate
Our Constitution prescribes that war happens subsequent to votes
by elected representatives. By debate and vote, presumably they
reconcile the war’s ends with the means to be employed. But to
reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Yet
because these are what our ruling class lives by, leaders of both
parties have joined to preclude such debates and votes. They granted
congressional funding for the one part of Obama’s venture with
regard to the IS that required it—arming some of the Sunni rebels
against Syria’s Assad regime—while avoiding votes on what
precisely that or any other part of the venture means. This is
textbook irresponsibility.
To reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses.
Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a Marine veteran, objected:
“We need to crush ISIS and not work on arming more Islamic
radicals. Just what would arming these people accomplish?” To
prevent massive numbers of Republican congressmen from joining this
common-sense question, the House Armed Services Committee’s bill
requires the administration to answer it in a report to
Congress some time in the future, but not now. The fact that the
administration and the leaders of both parties—the ruling class—did
not make reasoned answers to the key questions the primary premise of
their request suggests not so much that they are hiding these answers
from others as much as that they themselves have not addressed the
questions.
In the Senate, the ruling class avoided any vote at all by placing
the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the Continuing Resolution
for keeping the government open. This device, which reduces the
senators’ choice to funding everything the the ruling class wants
or “shutting down the government,” has become the principal way
by which the ruling class dispenses with the Constitution.
Experience Says We’re Crazy
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)’s common-sense objection to arming the
Sunni rebels might as well have been voiced by any ordinary citizen
for all the effect it had: “Our past experience, after 13 years,
everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial,
not proven at all. So what makes you think it’s going to be
different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of
Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of
Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?”
The WSJ notwithstanding, while the ‘moderates’ will take U.S.
money and arms, no amount of ‘vetting’ will or can cause them to
fight the IS for us.
The answer is that our ruling class does not think, as much as it
indulges its imagination and believes its own spin. A prime example
of which is the
Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial
of September 17. Never mind that the Islamic State’s Sunni subjects
welcome the ritual beheaders who rule over them because these are
Sunni as well. “The brutality,” writes the WSJ, “has created
conditions similar to those that preceded the Sunni Awakening in Iraq
in 2007—the revolt by ordinary Sunnis and their tribal leaders in
Anbar province against al Qaeda.” This follows the Bush
administration’s spin concerning the so-called “surge.” In fact
however, Iraq’s Sunnis sought America’s protection in 2007 not
against any other Sunnis but against the Shia death squads that had
begun massacring them in large numbers.
According to the same fantasy, conducting air strikes today
against the IS in former Iraq and Syria would encourage its
Sunni-Wahabi fighters to defect to the ranks of U.S.-supported
“moderate” Sunnis. This neglects not only that the flow of
fighters in the region has always gone only in one direction—away
from the less pure and less brutal to the purer and most brutal
Islamists. It also neglects the incommensurability of the two sets of
fighters’ objectives. The “moderates” are mostly Syrians
interested in governing Syria, while the Islamic State’s fighters
are led by Saddam’s Iraqi cadre, have fighters from all over the
world, and have pan-Islamic objectives. Joe Manchin is right. The WSJ
notwithstanding, while the “moderates” will take U.S. money and
arms, no amount of “vetting” will or can cause them to fight the
IS for us.
While Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence that Sunni
Arab states will join in fighting the IS, the
Journal supposes
to know why they have not done so yet, and why instead they have been
helping the jihadis: because our aid to the right Sunnis in 2012 and
2013 was “microscopic and half hearted.” This was the aid being
brokered by the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and cut off by mortar
shells expertly aimed by we know not whom. But the WSJ knows who’s
to blame for the Sunni Arabs’ failure to meet the ruling class’s
expectations: “Some Conservatives.”
Get Your Heads Out of The Sand
Like the Bush administration, Obama and the
Journal are
grasping at what they imagine to be a vast reservoir of inherently
moderate Sunni peoples and governments. Just show them how pro-Sunni
America really is, and this vast moderate wave will submerge the
terrorist threat to America. Thus the
Journal writes that we
dare not just make war on the IS that makes war on us. No. “Sunnis
will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our
air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its
Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.” You see, the real game lies in
making nice to Sunnis.
Believing in the saving power of a ‘moderate Sunni’ wave is as
politically correct though patently silly as believing in global
warming after years of record cold.
Obama has made clear that he envisages a very limited, tightly
targeted air campaign against the IS. It goes without saying that
this cannot possibly hurt it severely. But, were the U.S. government
somehow to mount a serious air campaign, nevertheless the inescapable
fact remains that the IS can be finished off only on the ground. But
how? By whom? Obama stays away from the question. The
Journal,
however answers: “the Kurds, the parts of the Iraqi military that
aren’t dominated by Iran’s militias, and the moderate Sunnis in
Syria and Iraq.”
This is beyond dumb. Believing in the saving power of a “moderate
Sunni” wave is as politically correct though patently silly as
believing in global warming after years of record cold. All know that
the Kurds will fight only for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army has proved
beyond doubt that, as a fighting force, it exists only insofar as it
is composed of Shiite militias. But our inward-looking, bipartisan
ruling class refuses to deal with reality. War consists of massive
killing that dispirits the survivors. Yet our ruling class refuses to
consider how many of what categories of people will have to be killed
in order to end this war with the peace we want. War does not
tolerate solipsism.
Yet again, consensus within the ruling class is setting
America on course to demonstrate impotence. Its preferences,
prejudices, and proclivities guarantee that the Islamic State and
those among us whom it inspires will be a growing problem as months
and years pass. Harsh consequences will follow until a political
vehicle for the expression of the American people’s common sense
comes into being.
Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the
Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at
Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover
Institution Press, 2014.
Labels: Liberals and Conservatives, Obama, War on Islamic Terrorism