The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Ultimate Enemy of ISIS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The president’s request for the authorization to use military force against the Islamic State has landed in a Congress as divided as the country.

That division was mirrored in the disparate receptions Obama’s resolution received from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

To the Times, Obama’s AUMF is “alarmingly broad. It does not limit the battlefield to Syria and Iraq.”

Moreover, Obama “seeks permission to attack ‘associated persons or forces.'” This would give the White House “virtually unrestricted power to engage in attacks around the globe as long as it can justify a connection, however tenuous, to the Islamic State.”

To the Journal, Obama’s resolution ties America down the way the Lilliputians tied down Gulliver. It authorizes war on ISIS for only three years. It would prevent another U.S. army from being sent to Iraq or Syria.

“Rather than put shackles on his generals,” says the Journal, “Mr. Obama should be urging them to mount a campaign to roll back ISIS as rapidly as possible from the territory it holds.”

But the country seems nowhere near this hawkish.

Viewing nightly on cable news the hardships endured by the Wounded Warriors of our two latest and longest wars has cooled the arbor for new crusades.

About the character of the Islamic State, there is no disagreement.

“A brutal, vicious death cult,” Obama called it.

But about whether ISIS is an “existential threat” to us, or if this war is really our war, there is no agreement.

North of Syria, along 500 miles of border, sits a Turkish army of half a million with 3,000 tanks that could cross over and annihilate ISIS in a month. Former Secretary of State James Baker suggests that the U.S. offer air, logistics and intelligence support, if the Turks will go in and snuff out ISIS.

But not only have the Turks not done so, for a time they looked the other way as jihadists crossed their border to join ISIS.

If the Islamic State, as Ankara’s inaction testifies, is not viewed as a threat to Turkey’s vital interests, how can it be a threat to ours?

There are reports that the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs would be more willing to participate in a war on ISIS if we would first effect the ouster of Bashar Assad.

Everyone in the Middle East, it appears, wants the United States to fight their wars for them. But as they look out for their interests first, it is time we started looking out for ours first.

Foremost among those interests would be to avoid another \$1 trillion war, with thousands of U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded, and a situation, after a decade of fighting, as exists today in Afghanistan and Iraq, where those we leave behind in power cannot hold their own against the enemies we defeated for them.

That an Iraqi army we equipped and trained at a cost of tens of billions would disintegrate and desert Iraq’s second city, Mosul, when confronted by a few thousand fanatics, was a debacle.
Why should Americans have to recapture Mosul for Baghdad?

And why do these “democrats” we install in power seem to perform so poorly?

Under Saddam, Iraq fought an eight-year war against a nation three times as large and populous, Iran. Yet, Saddam’s army did not run away as the Iraqi army we trained and equipped ran away from Anbar.

What did Saddam Hussein have to motivate men that we do not?

What is it that makes some people in the Middle East volunteer and fight to the death, while others refuse to fight or run away from battle?

For, as the Journal writes, “The Associated Press reported Tuesday that U.S. intelligence officials now say foreign fighters are joining Islamic State ‘in unprecedented numbers,’ including 3,400 from western nations out of 20,000 from around the world.”

Why is this?


The Islamic State has plugged into the most powerful currents of the Middle East. It is anti-American, anti-Zionist, anti-West, Islamic and militantly Islamist. It promises to overthrow the old order of Sykes-Picot, to tear up the artificial borders the West imposed on the Arabs, and to produce a new unity, a new dispensation where the Quran is law and Allah rules and all Sunnis are united in one home whence all infidels — Jews, Shia, Christians — have been driven out. Hateful as it is, ISIS has a vision.

Hezbollah, Iran, Assad, the Houthi rebels, all Shiites, understand this.

They know they are in a fight to the death. And they fight.

But it is the Sunni Arabs, the royals on the Arabian Peninsula and the sheiks on the Gulf, to whom this should be a fire bell in the night.

For ISIS is out to dethrone these perceived royal puppets of a detested America and to reclaim rightful custody of Mecca and Medina.

The Shiites are already in the field. The Sunni are going to have to fight and win this war against ISIS, or lose it all.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Shias and Sunnis 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Art says:

    Face it, Chris Kyle was knee deep in Sunni Muslim blood. That is why they, the average Sunni Arab, hates us. The worst of it is that he was NOT fighting to protect America, he was killing to maintain the Zionist and royal Sunni monetary power structure. Zionism and the royal Sunnis are bedfellows. Zionist banking concerns (the US Fed) and royal Sunni oil wealth concerns, dominate the US dollar. Truly, that is the way of life we killing and dying for. Our soldiers are surrogates for Zionism and Sunni royal wealth.

    Why is Netanyahu addressing the US congress, why does Obama rush to Saudi when a royal king dies? The answer is because they are buying the American government and its politicians – PERIOD! That is the only explanation for the absurd situation of endless wars we find ourselves in.

    Why are we fighting and killing poor Arabs? Don’t we deserve every bit of hate that they have for us? Isn’t our support of Israel and the royals justification for their hate? This cannot end well, how much more blood of the poor are we going to spill? When are we the American people going to get on our hind legs and say enough!

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  2. Pat Buchanan wrote:

    where those we leave behind in power cannot hold their own against the enemies we defeated for them.

    I’m confused.

    or Pat’s confused.

    I think the latter.

    Precisely who were these “enemies of the Iraqis” that we defeated for them?

    US did not invade Iraq to defeat enemies of the Iraqi people, it did so because Iraq had WMD, remember?

    In Persian Gulf I, G H W Bush did not take down Saddam because he and all of his advisors — James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, etc., thought that certainly the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam and topple him themselves. According to Jeff Engel, who has studied the archives on Bush I’s decision to invade Iraq 1990, that belief was held with a “99% certainty.” And if the same situation rose again, Engel said, the same belief would prevail: G H W Bush was convinced that the Iraqi people perceived their leader, Saddam, to be an enemy of the people.

    Except that they didn’t.

    Pat seems to think so too.
    Obviously, he’s wrong.

    So who IS this “enemy” you speak of, Pat?

    Pogo, your cue —-

    • Replies: @Michelle
  3. Truth says:

    “Why are we fighting and killing poor Arabs? Don’t we deserve every bit of hate that they have for us? Isn’t our support of Israel and the royals justification for their hate?”

    Y’aint a real Um-urr-kir are ya’ Boyaay? I hate you, Obonbo and all of you pinko-commie, long-haired, sissy-fied friends stinkin’ up mah country with your singin’ koom-by-aah, holdin’ hands in a circle and smokin’ refers!

    Get a hair-cut n’ some stones, then if I want yurr opinion, I’ll tell ya’ what it is!

  4. Michelle says:

    Noooo!!! Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD. Bush invaded Iraq for the same reason ISIS is burning Jordanian pilots, he wanted to show Arab leaders that he could kick their butts and, if need be, that he could depose them. Saddam, having made himself unpopular during his invasion of Kuwait, was the most expendable leader. You may have noticed, after the invasion, Gaddafi started kissing major Bush butt. That is all!

  5. Maj. Kong says:

    The average Sunni Arab has longer held resentments against America and the West, that go back even farther than Sykes-Picot.

    The concept of dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb is key.

    To make it clear, your argument is the exact same argument used by Al-Qaeda since the 90s, and Qutb in the 1940s.

    While you don’t say it, I must think you want US foreign policy to favor Shias, and I honesty think Pat does as well (Marine Le Pen’s FN outright does say this).

    Non-intervention doesn’t work in the Middle East, oil is just too important. Of course, I would prefer that China shoulder more of the burden.

    We don’t just fight for Israel and Gulf Arab monarchies (dollars to dinars, arguably better than the most likely alternative), we fight for our creditors (China and Japan)

  6. JVO says:

    Pat, what do you think about the Turks and ISIS having a common enemy in the Kurds? That could also explain the Turkish reluctance to engage.

    • Replies: @CARLOS
  7. j says: • Website

    But it is the Sunni Arabs, the royals on the Arabian Peninsula and the sheiks on the Gulf, to whom this should be a fire bell in the night.

    For ISIS is out to dethrone these perceived royal puppets of a detested America and to reclaim rightful custody of Mecca and Medina.

    Al Qaeda and now the ISIS Caliphate do proclaim their goal of ruling Mecca and Medina, yet actually did nothing to advance toward them. The Saudi king and the Gulf sheikhs have nothing to worry since thay have a deal with America to protect them. Obama is upholding America’s part in this 90 years old deal.

  8. CARLOS says:

    Turks play a double-game.They do simply everything to establish their Ottoman Empire again.
    Turkey was needed in the Cold War for the NATO to have a common border with the former USSR.
    In the NATO Turkey was able to receive weapons and promises like bringing their poor people to Europe as cheap workers.These people did send Deutsch Marks and other currencies home.The Military did protect the secular state until Mr. Erdogan did change the state slowly step by step backwards in a religious country.The West did ignore this. Only when there was sometimes a dispute with the US and no permission for starting their Jets from Diyabakir Air Base the West was remembered. The West is still sleeping while Millions of this Religion come into the aging Europe.The awakening will be terrible and bloody on both sides from the Atlantic.
    Turkey is dancing on different parties:
    They are in the NATO but support Al Nusra.
    They work together with Israel but on the other side they use anti- Israel rhetoric.
    They are talking about Democracy but install step by step religious principles.

    In my opinion the worst enemy of ISIS and Islam are intelligent women.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV