by Dan Margalit
U.S. President Barack
Obama found himself in an awkward position when he admitted to his
nation and to the world that the United States had not yet come up with a
strategy to fight the Islamic State group and offshoot terror
organizations. But, really, we cannot scoff at him because it is a
dilemma that is relatively new to us.
Usually, governments
are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to exert military force to
achieve goals outside their country's borders. But the Islamic State
group problem is more complicated than that. It is not an enemy on a
single front, as Saddam Hussein was, but a terrorist organization spread
throughout the Middle East, and its human resources are picked from
among the citizens of democratic countries, who migrated there from
Islamic centers and instead of integrating, radicalized. Europe did not
heed the warnings. Instead, it supported migrant rights organizations in
favor of migration from Islamic countries, and it is now paying the
price.
The radical Islamic
world, with groups ranging from Hamas to the Islamic State group, is
testing the core principles that democracies swore by until they were
challenged in Europe and in the Middle East. These democracies are
facing three dilemmas:
1. The United States
and its allies, and of course moderate Arab countries, do not want to
use ground forces, so they have no choice but to mount a forceful and
continuous aerial campaign, otherwise known as "carpet bombing."
What is carpet bombing?
The fate of the German city of Dresden during World War II. Not that
these terrorist organizations are settled in cities, and the rate of
fatalities would be much lower than in 1945. But if Obama wants not just
to act but also to win, to defeat and to eradicate without using ground
forces, there is no other way. That is, turning a blind eye to the
modern international laws of war. No "knock on the roof" policy and no
legal expert for each pilot. This is not easy. Every democracy has its
own Gideon Levy, who benefits from having his life defended and then
condemns the defenders. This is the dilemma, and Obama, who wants to use
only airstrikes (and minimal, pinpointed commando operations), needs to
decide if he is going to unilaterally change the rules.
2. The United States
has to consider joining up with the "Little Satan." In this case, that
is Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom Obama shortsightedly did not help
overthrow when the rebels were secular and reasonable, and even then he
did not make an effort to destroy the chemical weapons store until the
last minute. And yet, Assad is now seen as the lesser evil. To join or
not to join? A coalition cannot limit the war on Islamic extremism to
Iraq alone. It would eventually get to Syria too. Everyone knows that.
3. Democracy in the
West will be forced to downscale individual and civil rights. Islamic
Shariah police rooting out alcohol in German nightclubs? Those who do
not prohibit this kind of thing unless violence is involved will be
forced to prohibit it when bombs are being planted. Innocent until
proven guilty? If Europe wants to survive, it will carry out
administrative detentions against citizens who are the children of
immigrants.
Then, when the madness known as the Islamic State group passes, enlightened democracy will never be seen in the same way again.
Dan Margalit
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=9909
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment