Lacking Trust

A comment President Obama made near the very beginning of his 9/10/14 speech to the nation on ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State so distracted me I found it difficult to keep my thoughts from wandering through the remainder of his address.  He said: Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic”.  No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL victims have been Muslim.  And ISIL is certainly not a “state”. As I listened to this pronouncement it occurred to me the fact of our Government and Nation being unable to even decide on a name for this group is a metaphor for the pitiful lack of understanding we bring to foreign relations. This inability is as if we were caught in a pit and, for five decades, have concluded the best solution to getting out is to keep digging.

Now let me be clear, Mr. President: this group (I shall call ISIS for the sake of brevity), as a whole, is absolutely motivated by religious ideology.  What might motivate any particular, psychologically deranged individual in ISIS is not relevant.  That ISIS uses and interprets the scriptures of Islamic doctrine is also irrelevant.  That they happen to be killing people in an area which is primarily Muslim is irrelevant, too. What is quite relevant is our government that chooses to create foreign policy as if that religious ideological element didn’t exist.  And, Mr. President, the notion that religions do not condone the killing of innocents would be laughable if it weren’t so inane.  Human beings have been slaughtered in vast numbers under the righteous interpretation of religions since…well, since there have been religions.  Christians have been particularly good at it over the centuries.  The existence of any one individual’s interpretation of religion that argues against the killing of innocents doesn’t change the fact that it has occurred in abundance.  Finally, the fact that ISIS is proclaiming that their intention is to create a theological state or theocracy is important and should not be discounted.

Why do I feel this misunderstanding or intentional misleading about ISIS is important?  I do because since the end of the Second World War the United States, the World’s leading economic and military juggernaut,  has been unable to understand how to apply its strengths in a world that increasingly doesn’t use or need World War II vintage armies.  With Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now possibly Syria, all countries which posed no direct threat, the US has failed at every adventure, if failure is defined as the inability to effect positive change.  With the exception of securing the boarders of South Korea, it could be argued that each major conflict could have been better off if the United States was not engaged as it was.  We simply don’t get it, and Obama’s comments lead me to believe we don’t get it this time either.

The differences between ideological fanaticism and terrorism are quite indistinguishable, except the makers of US foreign policy don’t seem to understand that.  Our government has and continues to treat both as verbs, i.e., what bad people do.  Like roaches scampering across the kitchen floor, our policy has been to merely provide a heavy shoe to squish those pesky roaches and, presumably, affect the behavior of those remaining in the wall.  We can’t change them to be us, and if higher oil prices are the net result then it is with less oil we need to deal with. 

The fact that there are large numbers of people who view western nations (particularly the US) as Terrorist nations, with their fundamentalist Christian exclusivity combined with Capitalist ethics, nation building, smart bombs, and drone strikes, seems incomprehensible to both the US populous and our leaders.  The reality is that ideological (often religious) fanaticism and terrorism are nouns; they define a state of being and we will never be able to deal with those who view us as terrorists without recognizing the fanaticism that is part of what we are as well.

Okay, you ask what the hell does that mean and what would you do Mr. It’s-all-our-fault camel jockey?  I don’t know exactly what to do, but I feel all foreign policies we enact and follow relating to security should be consistent with these things I’d like to see happen:

• That we once again recognize that the unique characteristic that made this incredible country we live in possible was its adherence to secular principals and ethics.  History is extraordinarily clear on this point and to see this current 50 year swing toward a US theocracy under the guise of patriotism is just so much flung horse crap.
• That we make nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear weapon reduction the number one objective of foreign policy by taking the lead to unite the nations of the world to this common goal.
• That we employ a new, clear doctrine to replace the ambiguous so called Bush Doctrine, (which simply ramps up military solutions and promotes nation building). The doctrine should be that we will not recognize the sovereignty of any nation that either harbors individuals or groups who actively plot against the United States, or does not have the ability to evict them and, therefore, we reserve the right to enter that country to do what they will not or cannot do to eradicate the problem … and nothing more.
• That the use of our military in foreign lands be dependent on the establishment of a direct threat to the United States which has been recognized and validated by a 2/3 vote in Congress, combined House and Senate.

It seems most Conservative pundits, politicians or otherwise, feel leadership is defined by the use of military clout.  At least that’s one thing they have in common with the leaders of ISIS.  When they say (including President Obama) that our goal for “peace” is to encourage, by our bombing, various nations in the Middle East to destroy ISIS, I don’t believe them and I don’t trust them.  In order for that to happen you must expect young Islamic men willing to give up their lives to kill other men who are fanatically Islamic.  You must also expect that when American pilots are killed or perhaps publically murdered that our Government will withhold the use of the military foot soldier.  Forget it…it’s not happening.  I’d sooner expect an abortion clinic to open up at Liberty University.

Do nothing? No, but without a direct threat to the United States all efforts should be diplomatic and based on an objective to unify a coalition of like minded nations.  I’d like to see the American people out of this hole…not just be handed another shovel.