For all his idiosyncrasies and egotism, I’m confident that Tyler Durden, of “Fight Club” fame, would have made a formidable military strategist. His musing that “If you want to make an omelet, you’ve gotta break some eggs,” aptly characterizes grounded, honest realism. It is exceedingly relevant in the age of ISIS, ISIL, or whatever it is we choose to call them today.
Before I take the ‘Durdenist’ stance and call for a forceful American military campaign against this terrorist group, let's recap how the West and its Middle Eastern allies have fared against the new barbarism. President Obama did not start off particularly well when he called ISIS no more than a “JV team” last year.
Shockingly, the president got that one wrong. No matter. In the months since the beginning of the grave ethical and strategic threat posed by ISIS, the US and the West have barely committed to a serious, dedicated effort against the well-financed and well-armed group.
A fateful day in the fight came this past week. One morning, a captured Jordanian pilot was burned to death in an act of medieval brutality. Jordan’s warrior-king, King Abdullah, has promised to rain hell upon the Islamic State.
How this will affect the greater fight against ISIS is left to be determined. But beneath shaky coalitions and angry Arab monarchs, the sad truth is that the US-backed coalition is engaged in a haphazard game of chicken with the epitome of bad guys.
As things develop and worsen, as more innocent people die at the hands of savages, I am only left wondering what horrific atrocity is next on ISIS' hit list.
As burning a caged man alive trends on Twitter, the United States has no choice but to act.
We may still be reeling from the heavy toll of our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. We could spend hours debating the costs and benefits of these endeavors. But we all can agree that no one else can do that which is necessary and confront ISIS head-on with a sustained, fully-fledged ground operation. Nor will anyone else take the next step forward.
An American ground campaign against ISIS would come at a considerable price. Yet an air campaign, without sustained ground support, is not cutting it. As we saw in Kobani, success against ISIS requires a well-supplied, protracted bombing campaign and well-trained and well-armed ground troops.
Soldiers will die. Iraqi civilians will sustain casualties. Whereas Kobani’s non-combatant population had been evacuated or forced out before the showdown, that will not be the case in Kirkuk, Mosul or elsewhere in Iraq.
In consequence of any ground campaign, some have invoked morality, claiming that mounting a blunt, fierce military campaign blurs our moral superiority.
To these moralistic few; do the ends not justify the means when we are faced with pure evil?
I do not want to even begin to imagine what the world would be today if that sentiment prevailed as the Luftwaffe bombarded London, Free France fell or the British retreated from Dunkirk.
Practically speaking, more ISIS-led rape and murder will dangerously embolden groups like Boko Haram and the Khorasan Cell. It would be a stretch to think that a hashtag campaign or a tweet of the first lady pouting will leave them quaking with fear or, more importantly, stop them in their tracks.
As far as I’m concerned, American withdrawal from Iraq contributed to ISIS’ meteoric rise. We must acknowledge that Monday morning quarterbacking won’t defeat this potent strain of Islamic extremism. It won’t bring back Kenji Goto, Stephen Sotloff or James Foley.
More journalists will die, more children will be raped, and more captives will be burnt alive if the reign of the rapidly growing “JV team” remains unchecked, their hegemony unchallenged, and their resolve unbroken.
I hope President Obama accepts the reality that it is time to send in the troops and break some eggs.
