Now that the United States is going to “fight” ISIS, the non-Islamic non-state Islamic State in Syria and Iraq plus the Levant plus Cincinnati, by funding the non-moderate, non-rebel moderate rebels in Syria, it’s high time somebody sat down and tried to clarify this whole mess.
Ever since President Obama got the five-iron out of his … ahem … let me try that again. Once President Obama stepped up to his responsibilities and declared we would crush, kill, destroy — whatever verb he used — ISIL/ISIS/IS/non-Islamic non-State, the Administration has been on a positive tear through the thesaurus in trying to find euphemisms to describe what exactly we’re trying to do to whom, without us hearing that we’re doing anything definite to anybody real.
It’s not a war, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been the chief word wrangler for the current stampede of obfuscation. The phrases “overseas contingency operation” and “long-term counterterrorism operation” or mission have been bandied about.
Near as anyone can tell, Obama’s willing to let our military drop bombs out in the desert, but actually driving back ISIL/ISIS/etc. and taking back the territory it’s stolen is not on the agenda. So “long-range aerial maneuvers” and “security contingency advisement,” but no “kinetic military actions” on the ground.
I think there must be a special White House committee in charge of creative nonsense. I imagine its membership comprises people who used to eat a lot of paste in kindergarten. I imagine Kerry is in charge of it.
During a committee hearing on Thursday, Kerry finally allowed that we’re going to war, but he clarified that it was war against “the enemy of Islam.”
Now that’s a curious view, since jihadists around the world consider America to be the “enemy of Islam.” Surely, the Obama Administration couldn’t be going to war with America, could it?
I think the French have hit upon part of the solution for clarifying exactly whom we are fighting. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, in an official statement, agreed that he thought ISIL/ISIS/ad nauseum should not be called Islamic State, going along with the Obama nonsense about it being neither Islamic nor a state. However, he proposed a name that apparently drives the jihadists out of their medieval minds.
The term is DAESH. It’s an Arabic acronym, and there are several theories about its intended meaning, as it seems to be a double entendre, but it is chiefly used by ISIS’s enemies and seems to mean something like “that which is crushed underfoot” or “dust to be trampled upon.”
Whatever the interpretation, ISIS jihadists have threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone using it because it shows defiance and contempt.
Meanwhile, it’s clear that the last thing Obama wants is for people to call our enemy ISIS, because the “S” in the acronym stands for Syria. I’m convinced that Obama feels some subconscious guilt about ISIS, since he helped build it from the Syrian rebellion by secretly arming and funding Syrian jihadists in his quest to oust Bashar al-Assad. Also, ISIL is a slam at Israel, essentially sending a message that Obama agrees with our erstwhile enemies/mercenaries that Israel should be eliminated.
So DAESH/ISIS it is, as far as I’m concerned. Tick off both our enemies at once, foreign and domestic, as it were.