Correction

ISIS has now claimed responsibility for the Sri Lanka bombings, which makes much of what I wrote about them yesterday obsolete. It really was, then, done by Islamist terrorists.

But it also means the Sri Lankan government was wrong to blame the attacks on a local Muslim organization. In doing this the government may have been exploiting the affair to pursue their own agenda. Or they may only have been trying to cover for their own prior incompetence by being seen to take some swift action against someone.

This also does not speak well for either the intelligence or the abilities of ISIS. Supposedly, the church bombings were in retaliation for the Christchurch shootings in New Zealand. Yet the motive for the latter was not religious, and it is not clear that the shooter even identified as a Christian. He also does not appear to have been Sri Lankan, does he? And the point that the Western media does not care about Christians being bombed still holds.

The explanation may be that ISIS has grown so weak that they are now incapable of coming up with anything more relevant or compelling to the media. They needed some soft targets. They happened to have the assets in Sri Lanka, the churches had little security compared to any historic temples, and ISIS had nothing anywhere else.

The Coming End of Islamist Terror

While terrorist attacks have become increasingly common, I think there is hope they will soon disappear.

It has happened before. In the Sixties to Eighties, we had terror too. But it was from the left: the IRA, the ETA, the FLQ, the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Symbionese Liberation Front, the Weather Underground, and so on.

It abated by about the end of the Eighties.

Now why would that be? What happened then?

They lost their funding. The Soviet Union pulled out of the geopolitical game.

For a time, some of them got money from Libya; but then Gaddafi lost interest. And the shooting and bombing mostly stopped; until Islamism took up the slack.

It takes money. And why did Islamism take over? Because just as the funding dried up from the Communist Bloc, the price of oil skyrocketed, and suddenly there was a lot of money washing around in the Middle East.

Some of it, one way or another, has been available to promote the ideology of radical Islam/political Islamism.

Thanks to fracking, those oil-producing countries are now scrambling to meet their budgets. That does not look as though it is going to end any time soon.

And who else has been stirring up trouble for the West?

Venezuela and Russia. Again, their ability to make problems has been based on their oil revenues: Russia in Eastern Europe, Venezuela by propping up Cuba.

They are facing the same problem now.

On top of this, Iran in particular is facing a demographic collapse. Iranian families have more or less stopped having children.

So the man current challenge to the peace and security of the West looks as though it is about to die of natural causes. No doubt something else will soon show up, but this puppy seems bound for the pound.

The most upsetting thing is that, instead of taking advantage of this, when miscreants really had no choice but to come to the table, the Obama regime did not make any hard bargains, but instead threw Cuba and Iran generous lifelines. They now have the money to foment trouble for a few more years. Not to mention vacating Iraq and leaving the field free for ISIS militants to grab some revenue and some oil. They really could not have done worse in terms of foreign policy.

But even so, when it comes to ending Islamic terrorism the future looks bright.

ISIS Problem Solved

Gurkhas in British service, 1896.

The situation in Iraq and Syria has become a historic humanitarian crisis, on the level of Rwanda or Kampuchea. We must do something. Our posterity will not forgive us if we don't.

Unfortunately, the US is exhausted. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they have no more stomach for war. And the Europeans, after Libya, have lost what little appetite they had.

Once, in the days of empire, such matters were easier. One could send in the colonial troops:

We don't want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do--
We won't go ourselves; we'll send the mild Hindoo.

Indian artillery, Jerusalem, 1917.

Under British or French officers, of course.

This is apparently no longer considered seemly; even though the modern alternative looks much worse.

Still, there is a variant of the old formula that might be called into service.

It may not have escaped notice altogether that the US has an illegal immigration problem. Twelve and a half million, too many, many say, to deport. And Europe is facing a Syrian refugee problem. Germany predicts 850,000 refugees this year alone.

We have our solution, don't we? Give the immigrants in the States a “path to citizenship” by serving a term in the military, and in harm's way, overseas. Give the refugees in Europe rifles, turn them about face, and march them back to Syria in good order under German officers. Since we believe in sexual equality, there is also no reason to limit this requirement to the men.

Yes, it would cost something. But quite possibly less than a continuing and growing flood of refugees, if the present carnage continues.

This is in fact a time-honoured way for immigrant groups to prove their commitment to their new home. The Irish, long mistrusted in Canada (thanks, Fenian raids) proved themselves to their neighbours by enlisting in droves during the First World War, even while their homeland was in revolt. The Japanese of America did the same in the Second, proving their loyalty as their homeland was at war with their adopted home.

In the case of the Syrian refugees, such proof is quite appropriate: we have reason to suspect the presence of Islamist moles. More generally, such required service solves a problem with modern immigration. In the old days, an immigrant had little hope of ever returning home. He lived or died by his own efforts. There was no dual citizenship, and there was no social safety net. He had to commit.

Now, it is too easy for immigrants to be summer patriots, to see Canada, or Germany, as a comfortable hotel. You can milk it, then leave when anything is asked of you.

Requiring national service for immigrating would eliminate this temptation, would it not?

I think I've just killed about three nasty birds with one stone.

Eat depleted uranium, ISIS.

The Legacy Media Lose Their Heads

A Yeoman of the Guard

I could barely believe my ears when I heard an interviewer and an interviewee on CNN agree that the US was guilty of “hypocrisy” for objecting to ISIS's practice of beheading hostages while Saudi Arabia, an American ally, was beheading people. Then I did a quick web search, and discovered that the Globe and Mail, Newsweek, and other legacy media were making exactly the same accusation.

How could CNN have become so depraved? This, after all, was seeing a moral equivalence between murder and capital punishment. Criminals executed in Saudi Arabia have been convicted of capital crimes in a court of law, with rather stringent evidentiary requirements. The hostages killed by ISIS were innocent people being killed because of their ethnic background.

Presumably, this has to do with a prejudice against beheading as a form of execution. If so, that id all it is—pure prejudice. Logically, a good quick beheading is probably the most painless form of execution we can manage. All the evidence suggests it is less painful than lethal injection, as practiced in the US. Traditionally, in England, the common people were executed by hanging; nobles had the right to be executed by beheading. This was, of course, because it was believed to be less painful. So long, that is, as the executioner is an experienced professional.

Hanging, drawing and quartering was on the statute books in the United Kingdom until 1814. For crimes such as being Catholic.

Saudi Arabia also is being faulted by some of these sources for performing its executions in public. We in the West now consider this in bad taste, but there are good arguments for it. If an unpopular government executes a political opponent in public, it risks triggering a general uprising. Accordingly, in the old days, it was a matter of honesty and honour for the government to execute only in public, to demonstrate that everything was above board. Bad governments tortured and executed in the dark. That Saudi Arabia executes only in public is, in the end, a guarantee of honest government and Saudi freedom.

Three Steps to a Stable Middle East

Although Americans are back in the skies over Iraq and Syria, Barack Obama is obviously profoundly reluctant to commit land forces to the Middle East. Americans have had enough of war for now.

Very well, if the US does not want to be involved, there are other ways of quieting the region and eliminating terrorist breeding grounds. What we need is a system of mandates like those of the old League of Nations, giving designated countries a limited right and responsibility to keep peace and order in a given jurisdiction.

1. Give Egypt a UN mandate over Libya.

Egypt has 82 million people and an armed forces that did rather well in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Libya is only 7 million. They sought to unite as recently as the 1970s. The Egyptian Army ought to be up to the task.

2. Give Turkey a UN mandate over Syria.

Syria used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey has a large, modern armed forces and is in the mood for prestige these days. Giving them free rein in Syria could be a quid pro quo for keeping them out of Iraq while arming the Kurds there.

3. Give the GCC and Jordan a UN mandate over Iraq.

The King of Iraq, now deposed, was a member of the same Hashemite royal family as the King of Jordan. Monarchies work best in the Arab Middle East. They also work best in countries that are ethnically divided, like Iraq. The GCC is among other things a union of Arab monarchies. They are obvious backers for a reinstatement of the Iraqi royal family. It is also to their advantage to restore Iraq as a friendly buffer against their traditional enemy, Iran.

Three Options for the Americans in Iraq

A fascinating article, for two reasons. First, because it lays out well some of the problems with the three options it cites. Second, because it omits one obvious option.

In case you missed it, the obvious but unmentioned option is to send in troops. The proverbial "boots on the ground."

This is of course what it would take, and it would be far easier and less legally problematic to do so now than it was back in '03 or so.

Why do you suppose this is not even mentioned?

I presume it is politically impossible. But it is a bit sinister to not even mention it.

There are also other unmentioned options...

What to Do about Iraq

Current map of the military situation in Iraq. Good guys shown in blue.

It seems to many that the US has no good choices now in Iraq. That the sacrifices of the last ten years by the US military are in vain. Many say it was a mistake to go in in the first place; things are now worse than if the US had stayed out back in '03. When Dick Cheney went on Fox News to say Obama had gotten it all wrong, Megan Kelly countered that he too, seemed to have gotten it all wrong. Even the right, in other words, sees no good options now.

A pro-Iranian Iraqi government is fighting an Al Qaeda affiliate, who is in turn fighting the military dictatorship of Hafez Assad, accused of crimes against humanity. So whom does the US want to win? Why? Go flip a coin. If, on the other hand, the US stays out, won't Iran move in? Or Turkey? How will the Kurds feel about that?

I disagree. There are good guys in this fight, and they ought to be defended. And not just the Kurds.

I believed at the time that it was right for the US to go in to Iraq, and I still think it so. They had to go in; Saddam was flouting the ceasefire terms. (The Weapons of Mass Destruction were not the crucial issue,) They screwed up in trying at the same time to turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. In my defense, I thought this second bit was a bad, naïve, idea at the time. You cannot impose a democracy on a people, any more than you can square a circle.

I also believe it is not too late to save the situation. The US really does have allies on the ground in Iraq and the Levant. They are less aware of this than they should be, because of the same blind spot about democracy that led to their mistken attempt at nation-building in Iraq. Their allies are Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council. All have all been staunch allies, moderate voices, responsible influences in the region, and models of stability in the midst of chaos. They are involved: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait all have borders with Iraq. Jordan is practically surrounded by the conflict, swamped with refugees.

The US has a responsibility to them, ought to listen to them in this crisis, and, moreover, ought to look to them as models for what might work in Iraq. The US should still be funnelling their military and financial help to them, and seeking their counsel, to ensure that their allies in the region remain strong, and to ensure that said US assets are used wisely.

Which brings me to what I thought the US should have done in Iraq in the first place: restore the Iraqi monarchy, then get out. When you have a nation of many factions, like Iraq, you almost need a monarch as a unifying symbol, as there is no national self-consciousness to do this. Consider Jordan: like Iraq, a very mixed country, but stable. Monarchies are demonstrably more responsible and less corrupt than republics, short of a fully functioning liberal democracy. It is in the vested interest of the ruling family to foster growth and development, for the sake of their own children and grandchildren, instead of pillaging the treasury, as a dictator will, while he can. And Iraq had a legitimate, still-existing ruling house that could have been tapped.

Is it too late? I don't see why.

Iraq

Does anyone else find this incredible? Just over the wire from the Daily Telegraph in the UK:

"12.10 Iraq's parliament has failed to reach a quorum, officials told AFP, preventing it from voting on a request to announce a state of emergency to deal with the major jihadist offensive.

A senior government official told AFP only 128 of 325 MPs attended, and another official confirmed a quorum was not reached."

I begin to believe ISIS is simply filling a vacuum, that Iraq has no effective government. The insurgents took both Mosul and Tikrit within 24 hours, didn't they? 

At this rate, soldiers are just throwing their weapons away and blending in to the crowd as soon as the ISIS units appear. And they are moving almost as fast as the highways can carry them. And it looks as if the politicians in Baghdad, too, do not want to be easy to find when this is over.

What will the result look like? I assume the Kurds can hold their territory. I expect the Shia in southern Iraq may choose to rely on Iranian intervention to defend them from the Sunni ISIS.

This will not, for the US, be a happy conclusion to their adventure in Iraq.