Meet the New Terror, Same as the Old Terror

There has been a huge debate lately regarding the new terror group ISIS, or ISIL, or IS or whatever they call themselves this week. Exactly how big a threat are they to our freedom? Should we be worried about a possible ISIS invasion and subsequent war on American soil? Is this threat large enough that we need to start another pseudo-war in the Middle East? The short answers are, not very, no and no.

ISIS (what I will call them), is a group that is estimated to have about 20-30,000 members. That may seem like a lot, but if you compare that number to the number of soldiers in the American army, or even the Iraqi army it is very small. There are 100 times more American soldiers, and about 10 times more Iraqi soldiers. They mostly operate in small groups. I would wager that your local police would be enough to control any ISIS threat within the American borders. They are in no way a direct threat to any American citizen’s freedom while walking the streets of the good ole’ US of A. Outside of our borders, ISIS becomes slightly more of a threat. This is evidenced by the many televised beheadings, rampant terror in the streets of the Middle East and parts of Europe. Still not enough of a threat to spend billions of dollars fighting a rehashed boogey man with no face, no uniform and no country.

ISIS began under a different name, Al Qaida. That’s right, they are just the latest rehash of the same old terror group. They decided to separate themselves from Al Qaida this year because apparently Al Qaida just wasn’t serious enough about the goal of creating the worldwide caliphate. This group and the many groups that share this vision of an Islamo-Facist world are clearly made up of very dangerous people. People not to be trifled with, if you are a tourist, woman, journalist, or just happen to find yourself in the Middle East, these are people to be avoided at all costs. The question becomes, then, what do we do about them?

We are not without options. We could, as our president has done, pay some terrorists to fight these terrorists. That is to say, pay the same Syrian rebels who have ties to Al Qaida, which we fought for the last 12 years, with money, weapons and training to fight the new boogey man ISIS. We could skip the middle man and send American troops into Syria, Iraq and the surrounding areas to clean up the mess ourselves. This is a strategy favored by several senators and congressmen, because it worked so well the last time apparently. There is a third option, however, we could take care of our own borders and let other countries take care of theirs. I won’t give you any hints, but this one’s my favorite. My thought is that if a sovereign country wants to protect itself against the brand of terror that is ISIS, or Al Qaida, they will. If they don’t want to they won’t, this is not our business. If a country asks us for help, we may give it. I was brought to this conclusion when 800 ISIS rebels defeated 30,000 Iraqi soldier. That tells me they don’t want freedom. I am not willing to spend hard earned taxpayer money forcing people to want freedom. Forced freedom is an oxymoron. When they get to the point of wanting something other than being controlled by brutal dictatorship, Iraq will free herself.

The argument I hear from too many people is that we need to root out and destroy radical Islam, or Islamo-Facism. Here’s the thing, by polling data and intelligence gathering it is estimated that 15-25% of all Muslims are to some extent radical. Islamic groups counter that only 7-10% are radical extremists. Let’s split the difference and say that 15% of all Muslims believe to some extent in the tenants of radical Islam like sharia law. There are 1.6 billion Muslims around the world. That means we would have to kill around 240 million people in order to completely destroy the threat of radical Islam. Considering that they tend to hide around women and children the death toll could easily top 500 million people, virtually all of them Muslim. I can’t think of even the most hawkish president, senator or congressman who would be ok with the extermination of half a billion people, more than all wars combined even if it meant totally getting rid of terrorism. Also, the surviving billion Muslims would probably not be too happy after a third of its population was exterminated and we would eventually have to do it again. Where does it end?

I have never been accused of being a pacifist. I have no problem protecting Americans from direct threats to our security and safety. This is not one of those times. A quick glance at our recent history shows how futile it is to go to war not against a country, or an army, but a ragtag group with no uniform mixing among locals to the point of invisibility. We have armed terrorists to fight a common enemy before. Does anyone remember Osama Bin Laden? Ask Charlie Wilson. It simply does not work and always seems to backfire. The best strategy for ISIS and any other terror group is to fight them at home using intelligence gathering and good police work. Let other countries fight for themselves. If ISIS gains a whole country at least we know where to drop the bombs. If a country refuses to fight ISIS, stop giving them money and consider them no longer an ally. Start refining the massive amounts of oil we have in America so we can choose not to deal with countries that support terror.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s