ISIS: have you seen these links?

Last updated on: February 24, 2015 at 9:14 pm by Jane the Actuary

ISIS: have you seen these links? 2015-02-24T21:14:20-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“What ISIS really wants,” from The Atlantic, is a pretty in-depth profile of ISIS and its supporters, which says pretty clearly that the Islamic State is, indeed, Islamic, and simply takes the teachings of mainstream Islam to their logical conclusion, that Muslims are compelled to support a theocracy such as they have declared, and wage war to expand its borders.

At the same time, the author is pretty fatalistic about what the West can do about it, other than, basically, wait it out.

Which is a reaction that we haven’t seen in a while. Beheadings? Enslavement? “It’s not our battle.” “We’d probably make it worse.” “It’s not worth American lives.” Really?

Yes, of course, we have a long tradition of not-our-problem-ism, beginning with the Holocaust. And in the case of Rwanda, the West again sat on our collective hands. “Isn’t that terrible what’s happening there?” “Can’t be helped.”

In how many times, in how many places, have we in the West shrugged off genocide and mass murder? I suppose if I thought a bit harder I could come up with counter-examples, when we truly could do nothing, and, of course, there are the cases when intervening may have made things worse, such as our bombing in Libya that toppled the regime but left a void for Islamic extremists to fill.

But sometimes it seems like there’s a calculus: what’s the value of an American soldier’s life? Is there a trade-off: military intervention is acceptable if each such death can save the lives of 100 or 1,000, or 100,000 innocent civilians elsewhere to would otherwise be put to death or enslaved? No guarantees? Then it’s a non-starter.

Mind you, the White House goes a step further, and, as quoted by Breitbart, even denies the reality of what happened this weekend, with the murder of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS in Libya, deliberately targeted for their faith. The press statement refers to these martyrs as only “Egyptian citizens,” as if it was merely a coincidence that they all shared a Christian faith. (More details in this Reuters article.)

And while the statement calls on the international community to “unite against ISIL” — but at the same time, the President’s request for military authorization is so watered down as to raise the question of whether Obama is particularly interested in winning. As the Chicago Tribune’s editorial today said,

The president wants permission to engage, but he also wants Congress to tie his hands. He’s asking Congress to sign off on a plan to fight a limited war that excludes “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” He would tie the hands of the next president by setting a three-year expiration on the resolution. . .

Few people anticipate a substantial deployment of U.S. ground troops, “enduring” or not. But no one can predict how the war to defeat Islamic State will go. It’s a chaotic situation, involving an unpredictable foe against a coalition that includes a feeble Iraqi force and a motley collection of militias in one of the most unstable regions of the globe.

Congress should give the president broader authority. Taking away options and setting a timetable constrains our ability, complicates later decision-making and helps the enemy.

Give the president the authority he needs, not the authority he seeks.

Last link: The Anchoress offers us a prayer, recognizing that, in the Catholic tradition, these victims are martyrs, killed for their faith.

And last observation: I suppose you can tell when a cause is of great concern to those on the right, but not so much those on the left, because there doesn’t even appear to be a hashtag with when one can tweet one’s outrage.

Uncategorized

ISIS

Previous Post

February 15, 2015

Just a reminder. . .

Next Post

February 17, 2015 From a reader: a question for my fellow actuaries (updated)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many books in the Bible are named after women?

Select your answer to see how you score.

5 1 10 2