Edmund Burke was an Irish political philosopher, Whig politician and statesman who is often regarded as the father of modern conservatism. His most famous quote: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
How involved should the U.S. be? Hitler invaded Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia in 1939, and the policy was one of containment (some call appeasement.) His atrocities are well-documented. Yesterday, ISIS announced that they have beheaded another American, they have crucified Christians, stoned other Muslims, massacred thousands of Shia Muslims, and are buying and selling Yazidi women into sex slavery, justifying this concubinage as compatible with the Koran. The Nazis at least attempted to hide some of their atrocities, but ISIS seems to glory in their crimes against humanity, publishing them with seeming impunity. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that they are worse than Nazis. It is well-known that ISIS is making about $2 million/day through black market oil sales.
We all know how difficult nation building is. We still have troops left in Germany and Japan from World War II that ended 70 years ago. We have troops in Korea from that war 60 years ago. Is it a stretch to say that we left Iraq way too soon, if we’ve been in other countries for more than a half-century? Our record of leaving too early isn’t good: just look at Vietnam and Iraq. Will we make the same mistake in Afghanistan? Some other missions have gone terribly: anyone want to go fix the problems in Somalia?
What responsibility do we have as Christians (or even citizens of the world) to help the people of Iraq and Syria? How much do we help when atrocities happen like Rwanda, or Bosnia, or the Ukraine? Are you willing to nation build Iraq and Syria for a half-century to help rid them of our modern-day Nazis? How do we decide when to get involved and when to stay out?
Wheat & Tares 
ISIS is blowback from the US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians. The Mujahideen morphed into Al Qaeda which morphed into ISIS much to the the glee of the Neocons and US military industrial complex who make obscene prophets from this misery. If you’re concerned about war and evil the best place to begin is with the corrupt US government who start far more evil wars than any other nation.
Howard,
Your comment is repulsive and short sighted.
The United States was the sole reason the Nazi’s and imperial Japan were stopped (which was planning occupation of Australia, I might add). We also stopped China and the filth of Communism – first in Korea then Vietnam. The US also stopped the suppression of Eastern Europe by the Russians. I assume you would rather have Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin kill hundreds of millions of people; most of which were their own people.
The United States has been a tremendous source for good in the world and a champion of freedom.
Your comment is disgusting.
MH,
You forgot to mention cutting heads off slaughtered children and mounting them to poles. How can you get more vile?
Repulsive, short sighted, disgusting? Ken, you’ve extended my comment far beyond what was intended FYI Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s.
Who is Really Behind ISIS
Spot on, Ken. Not surprisingly most “forward” thinking individuals choose to ignore this subject because of the cognitive dissonance experienced while buying the line that Islam is a religion of peace and seeing what these ISIS scumbags are doing. The rest cop out of taking a stand by suggesting solutions that would involve traveling back in time to implement. Yes we did leave Iraq too soon. I would have stayed.
I don’t think there is much we can do. If previous nation building projects had been a success, I’m sure we would be going in again, indeed we’d have a moral obligation. But every time we’ve intervened, we’ve inadvertantly made things worse. So we have to ask ourselves if we do more harm intervening, or staying away. That’s not an easy question to answer. There seems to be some kind of universal law that you can only “nation build” from the inside, not the outside.
Europe experienced fanatical religious wars for several centuries, and essentially “got it out of their system.” Today it is unthinkable that Protestants and Catholics would go to war again, (unless its the wierd case of Ireland.) It could be that the Islamic world needs to get the religious warring out of their system too. Perhaps there is a certain quota of bloodletting that has to happen before it starts to dawn on people that their religious ideals are actually hellish nightmares.
I do think its important to not that ISIS has not actually crucified living people, just hanging aldready dead bodies on display. This Roman practice was indicative of a society which saw enemies not as dangerous heretics getting in the way of God’s plan, but rather as contemptuous sub-humans to be tortured for pleasure. ISIS has so far not made murder an art or a pleasure, and that, at the very least, shows that we haven’t yet turned back the clock past the Dark Ages. They murder because God commands it, same as the ancient Israelites. This fact should give Mormons pause, particularly as we study the Old Testament this year.
Beheadings are an outrage to our culture and that’s exactly why they’re being used. I was recently reminded by the wife of the once President of a well known aerospace company who attended a beheading that they are common in Saudi Arabia. At least 59 so far this year.
“But every time we’ve intervened, we’ve inadvertantly made things worse.”
This statement is unjustified. Are Japan, Germany, and South Korea worse because the US got involved? I would rather posit the problem is leaving too early.
“Today it is unthinkable that Protestants and Catholics would go to war again”
Not Unthinkable. The IRA is a recent memory. Have you forgotten?
“I do think its important to not that ISIS has not actually crucified living people, just hanging aldready dead bodies on display.”
Nate, you often play fast and loose with facts and definitions, and many things you say are just plain inaccurate. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798532/boy-17-crucified-three-days-isis-militants-accuse-paid-photographs-terror-group-s-hq.html
It might be worthwhile to ask “what can we do,” rather than “what should we do.” The idea that the US is capable of ending, in any meaningful, permanent way, sectarian violence in the Middle East is quite a stretch given world history.
While I wouldn’t go as far as Howard, Ken’s jingoistic assertion (#2) that “The United States was the sole reason the Nazi’s [sic] and imperial Japan were stopped,” to say nothing of the ahistorical howler “We also stopped China and the filth of Communism – first in Korea then Vietnam,” are hardly examples that demonstrate our ability to impose a meaningful pax Americana on people who have no desire to stop killing each other. Ken says, in an accidental burst of relevance, “I assume you would rather have Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin kill hundreds of millions of people.”
I would respond that they all did do just exactly that, we didn’t succeed in preventing it, and our best efforts would not have availed to stop it. We have been no more successful in preventing terrible violence in Afghanistan, to offer one example, than the Soviets were in the early 1980s.
Neither ancient nor recent history gives us any reason to believe that we could fix anything over there; that fact makes the question of “should” almost completely irrelevant.
“ISIS has so far not made murder an art or a pleasure”
Agreed. The winner of that contest goes to the Mexican drug cartels, who have tortured and killed tens of thousands of their fellow citizens over the last decade with unimaginable brutality and impunity.
What can we do, indeed?
MH, I know I play fast and loose with the scriptures, but I try not to play fast and loose with current events. I wasn’t current on the crucifixion situation. The article you first linked said that they were already dead. Regarding ISIS crucifixion, according to Wikipedia ( which is unfortunately about as unbiased as one could probably find), there is some question about whether ISIS has indeed been crucifying live people. Most of them are apparently dead beforehand. If it has been happening, as the dailymail article suggests, it may not be widespread.
Anyway, I’m not going to argue anymore that ISIS aren’t as barbaric as the Romans. But I think we still need to recognize that their behavior is a result of religious fanaticism, not mere sadism, as it was in Rome. It is evil, but it is a very peculiar type of evil, one no different than the evil committed by Mormons at Mountain Meadows. Religious fanaticism is very normal human behavior, and it can take extreme forms quite easily given the right set of circumstances. ISIS can’t entirely be blamed if their scriptures preach crucifixion, and they simply are obeying those scriptures, because they “know” they come from God, just as we “know” ours come from God. They must be taught to doubt their scriptures first, perhaps gently, as Jesus taught those who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. They worship a God of war and violence, which is the God of the Old Testament. They need to doubt the Old Testament. And doubts will come quickly. There is no way something like ISIS will last very long in the modern world. We will soon be back to having people like Bashir and Saddam Hussain keeping the peace. There are no quick fixes with Islamic extremism. This may take centuries, not decades. It took Millennia for Christianity, even though Christianity is supposedly all about love and forgiveness. How much harder it will be for Islam, which is a younger religion.
Regarding the success of WWII interventions, they are completely different situations. Those were all secular, budding 1st World countries, who were caught up in a short-term wave of imperialist naiveté, not millennia of religious backwardness. I think intervening in the Middle East is problematic in a way that intervening in North Korea would not be. Take out Kim Jong Un, and North Korea would become like South Korea in a few short decades. Take out Sadam Hussain, and Iraq will take much longer, likely becoming much worse before it has any hope of getting better.
Christian nations rose in the first world and had HF’s favor. Now they have turned our first world nations into dirty sinful cultures. HF will use ISIS as a broom.
…there is some question about whether ISIS has indeed been crucifying live people. Most of them are apparently dead beforehand.
Yes! The problem is main stream news media isn’t news at all, today most of it is propaganda. Our government intelligence works with the Hollywood film industry to not only create Argos but they also literally create much of the nightly news and this is why CNN is quickly on it’s way out of business, MSNBC, CBS and FOX audiences are in steep decline, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Please retrieve my last comment from the spam filter and post it. Thanks.
Much like Obamacare, the only surprise for me has been how clearly, quickly, and spectacularly Obama’s policies have failed. Back in the 2012 election Biden was boasting about how Iraq would be one of the administrations greatest successes. Earlier this year Obama was mocking the credibility of ISIS as a jv team putting on Kobe Bryant jerseys. And don’t even get me started on the red line, no wait lets ask permission from congress, nevermind, lets turn that Kerry flub turned into policy nonsense in Syria. Because of both failed policies (Syria and the premature pull out) ISIS controls vast swathes of territory, is incredibly wealthy, well trained, and potent, in addition to the human rights abuses you mentioned above.
I actually use this example in a teaching discussion about blowback. It is true that our actions have consequences, and groups we helped in the 80s ended up supporting an attack on 9/11. But inaction has consequences as well. We could have made a difference in Syria and in Iraq, but to we pulled out or didn’t intervene in the first place to avoid blowback, and now we have this mess. So we sure dodged that blowback!!
Even a small residual force would have acted as an honest broker. It would have kept the Sunni tribes affiliated with the national government, and prevent Maliki from gutting the military when he appointed his cronies in key military positions. It would have continued the training of Iraqi forces, and acted as a trip wire for forces like ISIS.
I must also counter a false excuse that has developed surrounding the claim that the Iraqi government didn’t want us back. They didn’t sign a status of forces agreement because the forces Obama offered were too small to offset the political hit that Maliki would take for having them there. For 20,000 soldiers Maliki would have leverage against Iran, Shiite militia, and the Sunnis (and vise versa for the Sunnis.) He would be attacked as a tool or puppet of the Americans, but with that kind of leverage (and associated logistical and technical support) he could take the hit. But for the paltry amount of soldiers Obama offered, it wouldn’t provide the leverage he needed to offset the Prime Minister would take. Obama completely rejected the higher numbers, and even the minimum troop requirements set by his generals. So he sabotaged the deal, and then passed the buck when the deal didn’t happen. (Not to mention, his liberal cheerleaders are still blaming this mess on Bush, when victory was in the bag as late as 2012 when Biden was taking credit for their “greatest achievement”).
So now we are in another air campaign in Iraq, have even less prestige and leverage than ever before, and have to fight an enemy arguably the most dangerous we’ve encountered in the War on Terror. So the Colin Powell you break it you buy it rule certainly applies. And we should have kept our soldiers there for as long as it took. Like you said, if the casualties are as low as Korea, Japan, and Germany, nobody would care. It would be one more on top of a handful of large commitments. Our best option now seems to be fighting through proxies like the Kurds and air strikes, though they are pretty lousy options. But when you back yourself into a corner through years of bad decision making, thats what you are left with. I would suggest force of about ten thousand soldiers, with heavy air support to fight on the ground. Much like Cortez and his native allies, our firepower and training would be the core of a much larger army of natives (probably Kurds) that would do the heavy lifting. But the American people don’t want it, and our come and go policy over the last 25 years and current inept president hasn’t engendered any trust, particularly with the Sunni tribes from the Anbar Awakening that are now left to choose sides between horrible terrorists or less horrible Shiites in Baghdad.
“I think we still need to recognize that their behavior is a result of religious fanaticism, not mere sadism, as it was in Rome.”
Nate, this shows a complete misunderstanding of Roman culture. There was not separation of church and state. Ceasar was a god! All religious problems were political problems in Rome. Christ wasn’t crucified for sadistic reasons–he was crucified for religious reasons. Any religious threat was considered a threat to Rome and was dealt with severely. While the killing was sadistic, it was precisely religious fanaticism that led to the killing of minority religious groups in Rome. Worship Zeus and Ceaser, or pay the price! (Yes you can worship your own god too, but Roman gods were most important.)
The sadism in Rome was the same as it is for ISIS. The message is “don’t mess with Rome or ISIS, or you will die a gruesome, painful death.” To argue otherwise is to misunderstand history. Sadism was a tool of Rome and ISIS, not an end.
“ISIS can’t entirely be blamed if their scriptures preach crucifixion.” Their scriptures preach beheading, stoning, cutting off limbs, not crucifixion. Once again, this shows a very modernist misunderstanding of the situation.
“There is no way something like ISIS will last very long in the modern world.”
Communism in North Korea and Cuba has lasted for more than half a century in this modern world. How can you make such a statement?
“Regarding the success of WWII interventions, they are completely different situations. Those were all secular, budding 1st World countries, who were caught up in a short-term wave of imperialist naiveté, not millennia of religious backwardness.”
Japan’s emporer was and is the highest authority of the Shinto religion as he is said to be a direct descendant of Amaterasu. Arguing that Facebook/twitter-feeding/viral video making Jihadists making $2million/day are “religiously backwards” is silly and a complete misunderstanding of both the current situation as well as both Imperial Japan and the Nazis seeking occult treasures in order to create an Aryan religion.
In the so-called Dark Ages of Europe, the Ottoman Empire was like the Renaissance period. Muslims had the best technology, the largest empire. Algebra was invented by Muslims. The writing of Socrates and Plato were saved by Muslims. They had the best mapmakers in the world. To argue that Muslims have had a millennium of backwardness once again shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.
Howard, either the comment was already rescued, or it never hit the spam filter. I looked and didn’t see anything there from you.
MH, I think one needs to recognize that polytheistic religious traditions are entirely different than monotheistic ones like Islam, Christianity and Judaism. In a polytheistic religion, whoever the “gods” happen to be at the time, the people worship them. So in Japan after WWII, that would be capitalism and democracy. Missionaries can go and convert them all to Christianity without a problem, as long as they show superior “power.” Monotheistic religions are another beast entirely, because its a jealous god who demands obedience and sacrifice. This is why I sometimes wonder, regarding the apostate monotheistic religions, “would it have been better that Mohammed never have been born?” “would it have been better that the Jews became just another one of the lost 10 tribes?” Monotheistic religion can be good, when the God is good, and can be evil when the God is evil, and in all cases, it is extremely tenacious.
Regarding crucifixion, I was trying to distinguish between a society whose motivation for torture is for sadistic pleasure and public consumption, like Gladiatorial fights, and ISIS, whose motivation is dogmatic. And I read the crucifixion IS mandated in the Koran for some cases, which is why it is being used, and the only reason it would be used. They are being obedient to the word of God, same as Evangelical Christians here in the US, and orthodox Mormons.
Its true I don’t know a lot about Islamic history, although I am aware that it has had some illustrious epochs. We can hope for change. I find it incredible that countries like Afganistan and Iran were progressive and modern just a few decades ago. Maybe they can become such again. We are going through a fundamentalist period in Islam, and it is proving particularly difficult to work with. But everything could be completely different 50 years from now. Going back to your original question, I’m open to intervention, but quite suspicious given our track record of success in the last few decades.
The Soviet Union was the major reason that Nazi Germany was defeated to say otherwise is revisionist history which not only self deludes and promotes our nasty American nationalism but it also offends the Russians who know full well the sacrifices they made to defeat the Nazi’s.
It pains me to think that so many here can plus up such comments.
Communism is actually a beautiful dream which inevitably turns into a nightmare because human beings cannot share on any basis larger that their own family. So any communistic society either turns to coercion or falls apart as human pettiness takes over. One can rightly call communism a delusion, but to call it “filth” is to deny that it springs from a moral zeal toward human equality.
Until the Arabic/Muslim cultures of the world can accept pluralism and tolerate diversity of opinion they are condemned to totalitarianism. nation building to form liberal democracies in such cultures is as deluded as communism. The only thing we can hope for is despots who generally want the best for their people. Like it or not the Shah was better for Iran than the Ayatollahs, the Socialists were better in Afghanistan than the Taliban, and it can even be argued that Iraq was better off under Saddam. Will Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt work things out? I hope so but I’m not optimistic. And as for Syria, how do we know they will be better off without Assad?
Nate is correct in pointing out that our interventionist track record is not something to be proud of.