For nearly 20 years, we’ve willfully blinded ourselves to the Rosetta Stone that decodes our enemy’s war doctrine. But the jihad (or shall we call it “kinetic Islam”?) is catalyzed not by al-Qaeda but by sharia — by Muslim law. So is the “Arab Spring,” now playing in Tripoli (and elsewhere) after rave reviews in Cairo.
I havebeenopposed to our country’s starting a war against Libya. And starting a war is exactly what we have done, exactly what we would call it if the shoe were on the other foot — the “kinetic” and “limited” obfuscations of intervention proponents notwithstanding. My opposition is fourfold.
First, as a constitutional matter, Congress has neither declared war nor otherwise authorized combat operations. When there has been no attack on the United States, no imminent prospect of attack against us, and no vital American interest implicated, our system obliges the president to have approval from the people’s representatives before entangling the people in a foreign conflict.
Advertisement
Second, and more weighty than the legal prerequisites for war (about which there is considerable dispute), is the prudential policy implicit in this constitutional guidance (about which there should be no dispute). The American people are a free and self-determining body politic. It is we, not the president alone, who should make the most important decision a body politic can make: the decision to go to war.
Yes, the Framers understood the necessity of reposing in one official, the president, the power to unleash all the nation’s strength in the event of a real threat to our country, as quickly and decisively as the circumstances demand. After all, in the late 18th century, it was anything but clear that the United States would survive. That’s a big part of why the Articles of Confederation, with their potentially suicidal security-by-committee approach, had to be supplanted by the Constitution and its powerful commander-in-chief.
Nevertheless, the Framers also grasped the other side of the coin: creating a commander-in-chief made it possible for a single official, just as suicidally, to launch unprovoked wars, inevitably provoking retaliatory strikes against us. They checked this danger by endowing Congress, too, with war powers — with the means to starve executive recklessness of legitimacy and funding.
Bottom line: In a country where the people, not the president, are sovereign, it is foolhardy to go to war without public support. If the people are expected to pay for and die in a military expedition that we initiate against a country that has not threatened us, it is essential to have strong public support. That support is won — or not — by forthrightly seeking congressional authorization. Intervention proponents claim that it is manifestly in our interests to topple Colonel Qaddafi on behalf of the “rebels.” If they are right, it should be easy for the administration to get a legislative green light. President Obama hasn’t tried, despite marathon negotiations with NATO, the U.N. Security Council, and the Arab League. Nor does his rah-rah chorus seem especially anxious that he try. This testifies eloquently to the fact that there is strong public opposition, no matter how artfully polls confirming that opposition are depicted as signs of potential support.
Third, and no doubt at the root of much public opposition, is the fact that we are broke. After a decade’s misadventures in Islamic nation-building, we can safely say that “kinetic military actions” against kinetic Islam are prohibitively expensive. A people whose unborn children and grandchildren will start out life trillions in hock begins to realize that they can’t afford to go to war unless they have to go to war. Moreover, the real war inside our nation right now is against the Left’s unsustainable welfare state. Any more billions we pour into unnecessary wars are billions denied to necessary security spending — such as border security, as NR’s Kevin D. Williamson points out. More to the point, they are also billions the Left will use as a cudgel to beat back vital spending cuts. Can’t you hear it now: “We’re blowing a fortune to wage dubious kinetic military actions in the Middle East, but conservatives claim we don’t have comparative pennies for education, health care, mortgage relief, our bankrupt states, preserving our safety net, NPR, etc., etc.”
"Qaddafi’s opposition is not driven by al-Qaeda. It is driven by sharia. Various factions want Qaddafi out so that they can install sharia and build a real Islamic state . . . ."
Mr. McCarthy has propounded a testable hypothesis.
We shall soon see whether the Arab nations in revolt install Islamic states or not.
If they do, Mr. McCarthy's hypothesis will be proven correct. If not, his Fundamental Theorem of Islam will be proven wrong.
So far we have one Islamic state -- Iran -- and one wacked-out ally state which bills itself as guardian of Islam, namely, Saudi Arabia. Let's see what unfolds.
"Interventionists delude themselves, though, when they portray [Western-influenced freedom fighters] as predominant, as the face of the rebels."
Even if they were predominant, they'd not have the strength of will that would be needed to ward off the Islamists. As has ben argued before, moderate Arabs are the muslim world's Mensheviks.
"CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.
"It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment."
Excellent article. I have for many years been sympathetic to Neo-Cons and still like them. I supported the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and I am a staunch defender of Israel. Opening a war on a third front with a country with whom we have no vital interests, however, goes too far.
All this causes me to ask the question, why have Neo-conservatives sided with the president and been his enablers on this? When things turn bad I hope they will be willing to admit their mistake. I also wonder if the same template we have created for this misadventure could someday be used against Israel should she be too vigorous in defending herself from attacks from the West Bank, Gaza or Lebanon.
Forgive me if this sounds wrong but everything I read in this article and elsewhere about the religion of Islam leads me to this question — would restricting immigration from Muslim countries be a politically viable option?
Mr. McCarthy was almost alone among conservative commentators in suggesting that we should be wary before we rush headlong into supporting the rebels in Libya. I sent his column to many.
I fear he may be proven right. But one thing is certain. If I have to choose whether to trust Mr. McCarthy's suggestions or Obama's actions, I have no problem deciding which to trust.
I fear we have been ill-served by officials in the Bush Administration as well as many well meaning Conservatives who have insisted that the peaceful religion of Islam has somehow been misinterpreted by the "radicals" who seek the imposition of Shariah Law through "jihad".
It's becoming increasingly clear that the "misinterpretation" exists with those who believe in or practice a "moderate" form of Islam.
That our nation (and even a conservative movement supposedly committed to the truth) cannot understand this given the evidence (including connect-the-dot briefs like McCarthy's) reflects much worse than naivety but rather a willful rejection of the unthinkable.
But the idea of 4 passenger airplanes hijacked and deliberately crashed resulting in over 3000 civilian casualties was once unthinkable as well.
Mr. McCarthy has deeply studied this issue and knows what he is talking about. I think we have seen this movie too many times before--always expecting a different, friendlier, more satisfying end. The limitations on Presidential war powers need to be defined soon, and I hope that this issue will bring about such an examination. But as Mr. McCarthy says, this "kinetic action" was not and is not prudent. In fact, it may open up whole new avenues of potential problems in the Middle East and Africa (already a tinderbox that we have not enjoyed much success in). I, for one, dread it.
MikeB, why on earth do you want to make this a "testable hypothesis?" I continue to think you protest too much.
Thanks you Mr. McCarthy...your sub-title is:
"The Islamists will use us, until they turn on us."
The blunt truth is refreshing...
Newsflash: NRO is giving an award to a deserving "commenter" (not a word but perfect for the occasion)...it is called the "Captain Obvious With Misplaced Big Words Award".
Mike B. - the hypothesis has already been verified 3 times, not just once. Iraq and Afghanistan have both, through the sacrifice of American blood and treasure, become states where sharia is the basis of the legal system.
"Can’t you hear it now: “We’re blowing a fortune to wage dubious kinetic military actions in the Middle East, but conservatives claim we don’t have comparative pennies for education, health care, mortgage relief, our bankrupt states, preserving our safety net, NPR, etc., etc.”"
Yes, in fact the moment the bombs started flying I started seeing tweets like:
When you look at the state of political and civil life in any country you are looking at a dynamic equilibrium. The dynamic is driven by trends, by tendencies, by forces pushing in one direction or another. The stronger forces will inexorably and inevitably push the equilibrium in their direction. It's like the name of that Neil Young album, "Rust Never Sleeps."
The direction of Islam is for sharia law to control civil life. Islam holds that sharia law is the received word of god. Muslims who do not believe this are the true apostates and the true minority. Muslims who do believe this can nonetheless selectively ignore sharia law in their daily lives. They can ignore any other tenet of Islam in their daily lives. We are familiar with this phenomenon in our own Judeo-Christian society. It's called "sinning." The believer's response to sin, to human imperfection, to backsliding, is the same in Islam as it is in the Christian faith: to repent and to go forth and (try to) sin no more.
But there it is. The tendency among believers is always in the direction of fealty, of correct observance of the received word of god. Another important point is that, because sharia law is the received word of god, it cannot be modified by man. This is why a truly democratic government -- a government dedicated to majority rule and constitutional protections for minority rights of conscience -- is logically impossible in a Muslim country. Those who try it, those who try to override sharia law with democratic enactments and constitutional bills of rights are, again, the true apostates and the true minority.
It follows that the form of government best suited to secure the blessings of Western style liberty to the people in a Muslim country is, in fact, a secular dictatorship. This conclusion is superficially ironic. But given the ground rules in effect in a Muslim nation, it's the truth.
A secular dictatorship is also the form of government most likely to advance American interests. Recognition of this fact should be the driver of American foreign policy in the Muslim world. This is not to say that we should apply to the Muslim world our old Banana Republic approach of the 20th century. Rather, it means the exact opposite: that we should not intervene at all with respect to regime change in any Muslim country which has not attacked us. We must recognize our inability to control the forces at work in the Muslim world, to do our best to quarantine the theocracies, and to assist the secular dictatorships.
Now there you go again, laying out a whole lot of common sense that the State Department, CIA, Administration, Military (all) have been unable to figure out forever in the Middle East.
Don't you know that all of these toppled leaders are going to be replaced with Democracy all across the Arab world by this time next year? I suspect that is why Obama is arming them all to the teeth, getting rid of every leader he can, and we are paying for it with our treasury to free them all, so they can disavow Sharia Law and Islam in order that they then fully appreciate our contribution to said toppling of dictators so they can vote elected officials.
The best thing that can happen is another dictator takes over that is secular or becomes insta-monarch or else you get all of these Arab countries turning afghanistan pre-invasion all over again. Such is the law of Islam.
@MikeB: I would like to note that the enshrining of sharia as the law of the land occurs more than just in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Afghanistan has sharia enshrined in its constitution (paid for by us!). How many others have the same? I'd bet more than you'd like to admit. I'd call all of those Islamic states.
In fact, the Obama administration-written and FUNDED new Kenyan constitution enshrines Sharia law in a country that is a minority Muslim: External Link
This administration is pro-Islam to the extreme, to the proselytizing extreme.
It should have been a secret deal among US, Great Britain and France.
Libya's oil interest has been sold to head countries of the NATO to exchange their support of Iran war. That's why France is so active to bomb Libya. War on Iran needs justification - a 911 alike terror attack. Britain and France would allow such false flag "terror attack" taking place in their territory. That possibly would be a dirty bomb attack.
Watch for the coming “terror attack” on Eiffle Tower, though in the name of “Islamic extremists”, actually from the puppets of western intelligence.
MAFV "Newsflash: NRO is giving an award to a deserving "commenter" (not a word but perfect for the occasion)...it is called the "Captain Obvious With Misplaced Big Words Award"."
Very funny! Do we win a prize if we guess who will be the first reciprocate?
