…So will the world just stand by and watch this unprecedented onslaught on freedom or will we do something beyond airdropping food and medicines and protecting our own personnel who may be caught up in the conflict?
Along with many others, I have been saying for sometime now that Iraqi minorities need internationally protected “safe havens”. Until recently, the obvious place for Christian safe havens were the plains of Nineveh. For years, the West operated no-fly zones over Saddam’s Iraq to protect Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South. What can be done to protect those under threat now?
As usual, +Nazir-Ali is absolutely right. But how many will heed his urgent call for action? The war-weary West/Global North is being extremely slow in waking up to the horrific reality of the new situation in the Mid East. We desperately need to come out of denail. ISIS is every bit as bad as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao ever were. Lord, have mercy.
David Handy+
RE: “new situation in the Mid East . . . ”
There is no “new situation” — it is an extremely extremely old situation in the Middle East, with very very little change, only today involving a demographic that we greatly connect with and appreciate as Christians.
I don’t think the US is so much ‘war-weary’ as “hopeless-cases weary.”
While recognizing the underlying teachings in Islam which the radicals use with such devastating results, it is too much to say the situation is not “new.” These various minorities have been living in the Middle East without facing expulsion or mass murder for many centuries. Persecution under the Ottomans and caliphates before them was sporadic. Their status as dhimmis is not to our taste but they did live and practice their faiths. It is the accelerating rise of radical Islamism which now threatens their existence. A Middle East without Jews, Christians of various types, Nabateans, Yazidi, Druze, and so on is “new.”
I would have thought that, at the latest, the evil of Islam revealed itself on 9/11.
All of you, #1-4, made great observations. I agree. I think many in the US are weary of being called to *rescue* every dangerous international situation/conflict/war. Also, there is a huge amount of denial surrounding Islam and its more radical fringes because so many have bought into the idea of Islam as the “religion of peace” unabashedly promoted at every opportunity by our MSM (mainstream media) here in the US. Perhaps this will be the proverbial “kick-in-the- @$$” many need to really understand what these radical Islamists are all about??
RE: “It is the accelerating rise of radical Islamism which now threatens their existence.”
Hi Katherine — we so often agree about so many things that at first I thought we may be defining the word “new” differently, but that may not be the case either. “Radical Islam” has been in the Middle East for many many centuries [I know we both agree with that!] — its heritage is one of a lust for blood and death that is extraordinarily beyond that of the Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians — so that’s *one thing* I meant by “not new” — but further, we’ve had this “next wave” of the demonstration of the foundational culture and values of Islam over the past **20 years** — and that’s “not new” either. I agree with you that some particular groups hadn’t been mass-beheaded until lately [although their lives certainly weren’t bubblegum and sunshine before either], but that’s what I meant by the line “today involving a demographic that we greatly connect with and appreciate as Christians.”
In country after country today we have Islamists behaving like Islamists, and the result is blood and death and mass beheadings. But it seems that if this particular group were not *Christian* there would be less of an outcry among Christians. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing — just really pushing back against the notion that US citizens just “don’t know what’s going on.” I suppose the low-information voters don’t — but such is always the case.
So I can only speak for me and perhaps my friends. I know what’s going on. It’s awful. But it is also hopeless to change a culture and religion that has demonstrated itself so completely and thoroughly both down through the centuries and during the last two decades.
Sarah (#2),
You are partly right. Of course, there are aspects of the violent sectarian strife that are very old indeed in the Mid East. For example, the Sunni’s and the Shiites have been bitter rivals for about 1,500 years, and that rivalry has sometimes erupted into intermittent wars. But as Katherine noted above (#3), there are other aspects of the contemporary situation that are genuinely new. And very, very ominous.
The Catholic (Eastern Rite) Patriarch of Baghdad has rightly described the extreme, genocidal tactics of ISIS as worse than that notoriously violent conqueror Genghis Khan, who annihilated many thousands of people in sacking Baghdad and utterly destroying the mighty Caliphate/Arab empire of that time. Worse than Attila the Hun and the Goths who sacked Rome. Worse than the Vikings who terrorized much of northern Europe in the Dark Ages. That’ a new level of barbarism that is truly scary.
Something else new about ISIS is that they have managed to acquire many millions of dollars by robbing banks and seizing other major financial assets. Yes, there have been wealthy Saudi’s who have bankrolled terrorism around the world for years, but this is still a major escalation of the problem. We have yet to see just what ISIS will do with all that money, but there is a very real and present danger that they will be somehow able to buy weapons of mass destruction with it. And they are ruthless enough to use them without any scruples.
I grant your point,Sarah, that our nation is understandably and rightly weary of “hopeless causes,” such as the Bush/Cheney dream of turning Iraq into a European style democracy almost overnight. That was incredibly naive and a Quixotic delusion, as post-HUssein events have proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
But we desperately need to come to our senses and realize that ISIS can’t be merely contained. Sarah, I know you’re a Tolkien fan, as I am. I’m reminded of the dramatic scene where Gandalf and Aragorn are trying to convince a reluctant Theoden that there is no way to avoid war with Mordor. He was naturally weary after the horrible Battle of Helm’s Deep, but he eventually realized that, however hopeless it might seem, there was no real alternative. Mordor would wage war on Rohan whether or not Theoden chose to come to the aid of Gondor.
ISIS is like that. It can’t be kept under a regional quarrantine, as if it were a disease like polio or Ebola that must be kept from spreading. No, ISIS is an aggressive, lethal cancer that must be attacked with every possible weapon and completely eliminated. It can’t be reasoned with or negotiated with. It must be destroyed.
Pay me now, or pay me more later. We WILL end up waging all-out war on ISIS sooner or later. I’m just saying that we’d be wise to do so sooner rather than later, after they’ve consolidated their hold on much of Syria and Iraq and grown even more powerful and dangerous. Sad, but true, I’m afraid.
David Handy+
RE: “No, ISIS is an aggressive, lethal cancer that must be attacked with every possible weapon and completely eliminated.”
Sure — as with the far larger master group called “Islamic jihadists.”
But my understanding is that Bishop Nazir Ali — along with scads of other Christians — is making an argument for further intervention based *solely* on just how awful they are. That’s really not a good enough reason in my book nor is it in keeping with the US’s use of the military. The world is full of scads of peoples and groups who are awful and do awful things and kill many people, in country after country after country.
And when you first commented you said “slow in waking up to the horrific reality” . . . and appeared to imply that that reality was of dead Christians, killed by Islamic jihadists . . . as if that is somehow strange and new.
I don’t agree that that’s what America needs to wake up to. I think we need to wake up to the fact that our country is at war with Islamic jihadists, of which ISIS is just a small sliver of evil and that if we are to defend our country we must fight them.
That’s a far cry from “oh my word look at this fresh new shocking and surprising horror-group that is killing Christians — somebody [mostly the US] run over there and spend a ton more of money and human lives and kill them all [but humanely and with absolutely no loss of civilian life] while we sit and heckle on the sidelines about how colonialist and oil-hungry you are!”
I’ve had my fill of that kind of rhetoric — and the cowardly, hypocritical values and foundational worldview underlying it — for my lifetime.
[Note that I don’t think any of the commenters above are in that group.]
My response to that kind of rhetoric is the same as my response to the collectivists over here whining that the State needs more money in the form of taxes from its citizens to spend unwisely. “Not a penny more, and not a soldier’s life more.”
Now if an Anglican bishop would like to make a reasonable argument about *defense of one’s country against a vile and vicious and determined enemy* I’m all ears. I’m enthralled and fascinated.
But I’m not enthralled and fascinated by “oh no, how could all this killing be happening please somebody — namely the US — go over and deal with this unfortunate, surprising, and messy business asap.”
Sarah, I was thinking of the longer perspective, longer than 20 years, anyhow. Persecution of non-Muslims has been endemic in Muslim lands since the beginning, of course. I’m not arguing to the contrary. But sometime in the nineteenth century the present extremism began its rise with Wahhabi and Salafi scholars reminding the faithful of the horrifying tenets of their faith. On the other hand there were modernizing leaders who saw a way forward, allowing people to be culturally Muslim but more secular in the public arena. Ataturk suppressed religious expression and built a surprisingly modern and vibrant Turkey, now in retreat. Egypt in the late nineteenth and much of the twentieth century was making progress. There were hopes in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. And in all of these places there were minority groups living in their ancestral lands with their ancestral beliefs. This is all being swept away by fanatics trying to recreate an early medieval society with modern weapons and tactics learned from the Red Brigade of European anarchists.
What makes it our business is the ability of the fanatics to bring their demonic battle here. We can’t cure the Muslim world of its severe plague, but we could try harder than we have to identify and encourage the modernizers and to refrain from empowering the fanatics, however “democratically” they may have come to power (and that is often an illusion anyhow).
[blockquote] “There is no “new situationâ€â€”it is an extremely extremely old situation in the Middle East, with very very little change, only today involving a demographic that we greatly connect with and appreciate as Christians.” [/blockquote]
“very very little change” could only be written by someone who has virtually no knowledge of the history of this region, or of Islam.
[blockquote] ““Radical Islam†has been in the Middle East for many many centuries [I know we both agree with that!]—its heritage is one of a lust for blood and death that is extraordinarily beyond that of the Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians” [/blockquote]
I am sorry but this is also simply ignorance. Christianity no less than Islam has had extremely bloodthirsty elements in it.
[blockquote] “So I can only speak for me and perhaps my friends.” [/blockquote]
I do hope so. To the extent that the US gets involved in this latest issue, the rest of us need it to be run by people capable of understanding international affairs and how the US is already involved in them through its trade and financial position.
[blockquote] “But it is also hopeless to change a culture and religion that has demonstrated itself so completely and thoroughly both down through the centuries and during the last two decades.”
[/blockquote]
I assume this is meant in response to +Nazir-Ali’s call for actions to protect Christians. In that context, it is not remotely true.
[blockquote] “But my understanding is that Bishop Nazir Ali—along with scads of other Christians—is making an argument for further intervention based *solely* on just how awful they are.” [/blockquote]
I suggest reading the article to see what he actually says. There is a lot of detail and nuance there. It isn’t solely anything.
[blockquote] “That’s a far cry from “oh my word look at this fresh new shocking and surprising horror-group that is killing Christians—somebody [mostly the US] run over there and spend a ton more of money and human lives and kill them all [but humanely and with absolutely no loss of civilian life] while we sit and heckle on the sidelines about how colonialist and oil-hungry you are!â€.” [/blockquote]
Right. Now about what +Nazir-Ali is actually advocating…?
[blockquote] “I don’t agree that that’s what America needs to wake up to. I think we need to wake up to the fact that our country is at war with Islamic jihadists, of which ISIS is just a small sliver of evil and that if we are to defend our country we must fight them.” [/blockquote]
Anyone who puts it like that doesn’t understand what the war is about, and will only be able to fight it in the most incompetent fashion. You would have made a good US general in Vietnam during the early 1960s, with similar results.
Michael A
The American generals in Vietnam actually did a pretty good job considering the constraints under which they fought. Like, for example, not being able to invade the North. Nor drive West to the Mekong to isolate the battle field. They never lost a battle. They had destroyed the Viet Cong by 68. They were winning the war of attrition with North. The problem in VN was not strategy but national will.
As for the Bishop’s proposal … I don’t know what you think an ad hoc collection of regiments from various nations possessing various capabilities will actually accomplish. I’m not even sure who in the “international community” would provide them. Or who would sustain the logistics trail. Or what their mission would be. But if that mission isn’t “Seek out the bad guys, kill them, and impose the rule of law” you won’t actually change anything.
carl
RE: “could only be written by someone who has virtually no knowledge of the history of this region, or of Islam.”
[chortle]
No, the differences between our conception of American foreign policy or military engagement are not about ignorance of anything at all — simply that we don’t share the same political values or worldview as has been demonstrated over the years in spades.
RE: “Christianity no less than Islam has had extremely bloodthirsty elements in it.”
Nope — it has *less*. You and I can trade lists of bloodthirsty actions til the cows come home — I’m well aware of the various lists — but the clear overarching theme of Islam is the affliction of death and blood on others. Not so for Christianity.
RE: “To the extent that the US gets involved in this latest issue . . .”
We’ll be voting otherwise, and as I pointed out to you a year ago, there’s been a big shift in the country’s interest in military engagement on these matters. We’re seeing that play out domestically as the hawks grow increasingly frustrated. Good.
RE: “how the US is already involved in them through its trade and financial position.”
Heh — every other civilized country is as well. And that doesn’t make one of them responsible for Islamic jihadists doing what Islamic jihadists do.
RE: “I assume this is meant in response to +Nazir-Ali’s call for actions to protect Christians.”
Assume as you please it makes no odds to me.
RE: “I suggest reading the article to see what he actually says.”
Already done days ago — and nope there wasn’t any meaningful “detail and nuance” at all. It was a bunch of words that ultimately came down to calling out for somebody to do something because isn’t it all just awful, written in the typically narrow and constricted fashion of those who can’t admit *the Big Reason* why all the specific atrocities they’re listing are occurring, then listing some ridiculously clueless option [really . . . “encourage ‘a Bill of Rights’ in Egypt, for example, or a review of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan”] and hoping for “a UN-authorised international force.” Hopeless — but pretty standard and we’re all familiar with that over the last many years.
RE: “Anyone who puts it like that doesn’t understand what the war is about . . . ”
Heh — anybody who puts it like that is accurate and will do a good job. And that’s whom I’ll be voting for come 2016. Until then . . . you’ve got Obama to wait on.
RE: “You would have made a good US general in Vietnam during the early 1960s, with similar results.”
Blinding ignorance that doesn’t need any response. You know nothing of American engagement in Vietnam. But there is one similarity — we had a president then who didn’t want the American military to win anything at all, with predictable results. That’s another reason why America needs to do nothing further militarily in the Middle East.
Fortunately . . . I don’t think we will.
Thanks Carl and you’re right — but even *if* MichaelA had educated himself about US military engagement in Vietnam, he’d be no more able to accept a different interpretation of events than Jane Fonda because to do so would mean challenging his political worldview and values.
RE: “What makes it our business is the ability of the fanatics to bring their demonic battle here.”
Hi Katherine — I completely agree. I’m more than willing to hear arguments about the US military and their appropriate and constitutional use in defense of our country. I have no problem with our having waged war within Iraq and Afghanistan against Islamic jihadists who found refuge there, nests of such adders littering the country, along with infesting many other countries in the Middle East, and our establishing a base there from which to conduct operations. And I’m glad that we did — because I wish to defend our country.
But so far, the primary themes are to use the US military as a global social welfare agency for a permanent period of time in a random chosen country, Iraq, because we just feel like it because it’s all so awful there.
I’m more than comfortable using the military as a part of our war with Islamic jihad and in a matter of self defense. But using the military for our own version of global social welfare is not at all in keeping with the limited powers that were expressly spelled out for us and that our country’s leaders agree to with every oath of office they take.
We are incredibly fortunate that the incompetent people in charge of our country right now don’t want to commit the US military in much of anything, including defense of our country.
Sarah
Re: “using the military for our own version of global social welfare”
That is the nexus of the controversy. There are many in the chattering classes (and in the weak nations of Europe) who want to transform military power from an instrument of national interest into an instrument of international justice. It is a vision of the soldier as an enforcer of international law. But a military force does not easily perform that role. The requirements of exercising military power cannot be made compatible with the idea if collective law enforcement. You can’t make the military into an institutional form of a cop.
The desire to stop the killing is understandable but there is no thought being given to what comes next. It’s not enough to stop the killing. You must also change the culture so that it doesn’t start again once you leave. And that is the hard part. It requires effort and time and (most of all) a willingness to endure casualties. That is where humanitarian intervention fails. Without self-interest, there will be no long term willingness to endure casualties. The emotion of the pictures on TV give way to the gold stars in the window. And that’s when it ends.
carl
Hi, Sarah, I don’t think we are in disagreement here. In my opinion U.S. military forces should be deployed ONLY when there is a national interest, not for every crisis everywhere. The problem now is the inability of our political administration to recognize enemies and real threats to our security. We’ve helped rescue some people from a mountain, but we have no other plan or strategy for dealing with Islamism in the region (or here, for that matter).
Michael A, I can’t agree with your view either of Islam or of Christianity with reference to violence. Certainly Christendom has had violent periods, but you will search in vain in the foundations of our religion for justification for violent purging of minority religions or for the religious wars or for the burnings at the stake and other atrocities committed by both Catholics and Protestants. In the case of Islam, however, the justification for the IS atrocities is in the Qur’an and the hadith. I have in my possession an official English-Arabic parallel Qur’an with footnotes from the Muslim holy mosque in Mecca. The violent and oppressive passages are clearly there. When Islamists like IS do these deeds they are observing the foundations of their religion. But for many centuries the majority of Muslims did not study and did not follow the more bloodthirsty and intolerant tenets of their faith. We need both at home and abroad to encourage those Muslims who prefer a modified and less violent and intolerant version of their faith, and we need to be clear-headed enough to identify and not encourage those who choose the fundamental barbarism.