Combatting the ISIS terrorists is a just war—the only type Democrats participate in.
Combatting the ISIS terrorists is a just war—the only type Democrats participate in.
I know the concept that no war is a just war. This theory maintains that every conflict should be addressed in a manner other than war and no blood should be shed. How can ISIS be stopped other than by war? International coalitions can’t sue a non-state entity to force them to stop their barbarism.
This is not a situation similar to Neville Chamberlain’s desire to placate Hitler. President Obama won’t go down in history as an appeaser if he doesn’t attack ISIS, but it would be wrong if he didn’t do so. Even other Muslims terrorists are repulsed by ISIS’ barbarism.
President Obama is aware of Rumsfeld’s “slog” memo which warned that killing terrorists begets more terrorists and isn’t cost efficient. Maybe attacking ISIS works against our interests due to these reasons, but President Obama has made the decision we must stop their barbarism and he considers attacking them to be our most viable alternative.
Is there a just war?
The article “The new military morality: Can the principles of Just War have meaning in today's world?” states “The classical idea of a Just War goes back to the 4th-century religious thinker Augustine of Hippo. For war to be licit, he said, it must be declared by a competent legal authority – a ruler, not a private individual. And it must have a just cause – to recover something stolen or to punish evil. Injustice was a greater evil than war.
Thomas Aquinas, the Middle Ages’ leading thinker, insisted that there had to be “right intention” behind the just cause, ruling out grabs for power or land (or, indeed, oil) masquerading as the righting of wrong. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the fathers of international law – the theologians De Vitoria and Suarez, and the Dutch jurist Grotius – added that a Just War must be fought by proportional means, must always be a last resort, and must have a realistic chance of success.”
The world changed and military technology evolved and the thinking became that dropping nuclear bombs, or the threat of doing so, saved lives. There has been asymmetrical warfare for generations.
What could the English do with the Americans fighting for their country and hiding in villages? What can we do with ISIS? Some of these Sunni fighters were our allies in Iraq.
There aren't any easy answers and sometimes evil has to be stopped.
How can ISIS be stopped other than by war?
The article “Sorry, Peaceniks—Nonviolence Won’t Stop ISIS” the article states “This is one authoritarian regime we can’t beat by protesting.
Tanks couldn’t stop the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Neither could artillery or helicopters. Not even Hezbollah’s well-trained fighters have succeeded in crushing the militant Islamists who conquered much of western Iraq in June.
So why would holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” defeat ISIS’ head-chopping, enemy-crucifying fanatics?
Yet one peace researcher argues that nonviolent protest can stop ISIS.
To her credit, Maria Stephan, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, doesn’t suggest that sitting down to a nice cup of tea will soothe the leaders of the new self-declared caliphate. Instead, she more pragmatically argues that non-violence political and economic action could undermine crucial Sunni support for ISIS, which has been able to capitalize on Sunni anger at Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki’s the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.
“Against ISIL, the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, it is unlikely that civil resistance could ever achieve a total victory,” Stephan writes. “But organized non-violent defiance and non-cooperation could be a complicating factor for terrorist elements seeking to control territory in Iraq, Syria and beyond.”
Stephan claims that 53 percent of non-violent movements have succeeded, compared to just 26 percent of armed campaigns.”
If the international coalition doesn’t subdue ISIS then more innocents in the Middle East will die than the number of ISIS terrorists killed in attacks by the international coalition.
The article states “How tempting is it to dream of innocent Iraqis ridding themselves of the fanatics and warlords, but without resorting to the same brutal means as their tormentors?
Unfortunately, we’re talking about Iraq, not Egypt or The Philippines. Iraq is not some state ruled by an aging strongman clinging to his old power and wealth. It’s a country that has suffered a decade-long sectarian civil war. There isn’t much a constituency for nonviolence. Nor would the inheritors of a new Iraq necessarily reward peaceful protestors.
During the U.S. occupation, American and Iraqi officials persuaded Sunni tribes to fight Al Qaeda—the much-ballyhooed Anbar Awakening. But why should the same tribes run the risk of opposing ISIS nonviolently—which very likely will get some of them killed—when their reward almost certainly is oppression at the hands of the Shia government?
Stephan suggests that Iraq’s Sunni minority could also deploy nonviolence against the Iraqi government. In which case, Iraqi Sunnis would be fighting both ISIS and the government. Fighting on two fronts simultaneously is never a good idea if you can avoid it.”
Nonviolence doesn’t always work as the article states “Jewish nonviolence against the Nazis would have failed because Hitler was not.
ISIS is on a mission to create an Islamic state, where God’s law—as the group interprets it—reigns supreme. If a few infidels and apostates get beheaded in the process, so much the better.
Compared to the alleged rewards of paradise, what difference does it make whether infidels and apostates practice nonviolence? Public protest is not likely to shame a group that is busy blowing up Shia mosques in the name of Islam.
As for economic pressure through non-cooperation by Iraqi Sunnis, ISIS appears to be flush with cash, thanks in part its Gulf state sponsors … and to robbing banks….
The question isn’t whether nonviolence could damage ISIS. The question is whether it will damage it sufficiently to either change its behavior or compel the group to leave Iraq. If neither occurs, then the only way to defeat ISIS is through violent means.
Which is how exactly how non-ISIS Syrian rebels, tired of ISIS hijacking their supplies and assassinating their leaders, drove the extremists out of parts of Syria.”
President Obama won’t go down in history as an appeaser if he doesn’t attack ISIS analogous to Neville Chamberlain’s desire to placate Hitler.
Sadly no matter what President Obama does the Tea Party will compare him to Neville Chamberlain.
Even other Muslims terrorists are repulsed by ISIS’ barbarism.
The article “The Burn ISIS Flag Challenge: Outraged Muslims flood web with their version of the Ice Bucket Challenge in protest against Islamic State barbarism” demonstrates how Muslims are appalled at ISIS. It is not only peace loving Muslims who hate ISIS’ tactics. It is other terrorists as well as the article states “Yesterday, even Qatada, who was extradited from Britain to Jordan on terror charges in July last year, condemned the barbaric tactics employed by the Islamic State.”
Rumsfeld’s “slog” memo warned that killing terrorists begets more terrorists.
The article “Leaked memo exposes Rumsfeld's doubts about war on terror” states about Rumsfeld “In his memo the defense secretary takes a long-term view of the counter-terrorist effort and wonders whether terrorists are being recruited in religious schools [madrassas] faster than US troops can kill or capture them….
"The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."
President Obama is forming an international coalition to help in this battle.
The article “Obama calls for dismantling IS 'network of death'” states “Declaring the world at a crossroads between war and peace, President Barack Obama vowed at the U.N. on Wednesday to lead a coalition to dismantle an Islamic State "network of death" that has wreaked havoc in the Middle East and drawn the U.S. back into military action in the region.
Speaking to the annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said the U.S. would be a "respectful and constructive partner" in confronting the Islamic State militants through force. But he also implored Muslims in the Middle East to reject the ideology that has spawned groups like the Islamic State and to cut off funding that has allowed that terror group and others to thrive.
"Ultimately, the task of rejecting sectarianism and extremism is a generational task — a task for the people of the Middle East themselves," Obama said. "No external power can bring about a transformation of hearts and minds."
While he is waging this attack against ISIS he is working constructively with Iran with their nuclear program. President Obama is quoted as saying "My message to Iran's leaders and people is simple: Do not let this opportunity pass," Obama said. "We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful."
Subduing ISIS will reduce the bloodshed in the Middle East
If the international coalition doesn’t subdue ISIS then more innocents in the Middle East will die than the number of ISIS terrorists killed in attacks by the international coalition. Reducing the amount of bloodshed has to be everyone's ultimate goal.