ISIL Schmisil

A few months ago, no one outside of the defense establishment had ever heard of ISIS, but now that the President has offered a strategy to combat these barbaric psychopaths, the right-wing geniuses in congress and every talking blonde-head on Fox News has suddenly become an expert on Middle Eastern foreign policy. It's clear that the terrorist organization has become an existential threat to the US. Recently, an ISIS leader paraphrased George W. Bush, saying, "You are either with us or we will kill you." Their savagery has again taken this nation back into a sectarian war, and if that is the case, the reactionary Obama haters need to sit down and shut up. When the criminal Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses, he was at least given the courtesy of bipartisan support before his lies were exposed. No such support for Obama. An editorial appeared in the New York Times, composed by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, the Abbott and Costello of warmongers, goading the president into stronger action, including more American troops on the ground. After Obama's televised address outlining plans for assembling a coalition to join the fight, a speech, by the way, which could easily have been given by G. Dubya, Lindsay Graham ran to Fox News Sunday and said, "Our strategy will fail yet again. The president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed here at home."

The 'Bama-bashers first took issue with the president for using the term ISIL, instead if ISIS. I was baffled too and had to Google it for myself. So, ISIS means the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Which raises another question- Levant is an antiquated term used mainly by archaeologists, meaning the area currently in conflict, but also including Palestine and Israel. The apocalyptic conspiratorialists went blotto claiming Obama had a hidden agenda. One end-of-times website said, "When Obama refers to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State... Obama's ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel." Really? Another article credited to the Fox News Staff joined the argument over the president's choice of words. A massive mob of jihadist maniacs are running wild in Iraq and Syria, committing mass killings, public executions, beheadings, and crucifixions, and the conservative crazies over at Fox are arguing over semantics. Meanwhile, Obama has killed more terrorists than sand fleas and crotch rot.

These three gruesome videos of a knife-wielding, British-sounding ISIS terrorist, who will soon be known as "ashes in a keffiyeh," are meant to goad the West into sending in ground troops as targets. Aside from our Special Forces who, to no one's surprise, are already there, these savages aren't worth sacrificing a single troop. In this case, Obama's strategy is correct- use air strikes and drone the hell out of them. Recently, I viewed a video online that was either leaked or classified because it was quickly taken down. It showed the view from a US helicopter warship over a camp of ISIS killers, scurrying like rats in a barn while being targeted and blown to hell by our military. I must admit, it was the most engrossing thing I've seen online in a while. We have the technology to halt the advances of this group of disaffected men without women, but the need for ground troops is the subject of the current Paris Conference. Muslim countries need to combat this threat directly, but the cavalry isn't coming- not from our dear friends the Saudis, or the Turks, or the United Arab Emirates- the "Coalition of the Threatened." Our military claims that an army of Sunni Muslims is necessary to fight the Sunni dominated ISIS militia who were left jobless after we disbanded the Iraqi army. Of course, since that army belonged to Saddam Hussein, they had to go. Now, they're back and they're enraged and insane.

Y'all know me. I'm a leftist peace-nick. There hasn't been a war since Vietnam that I haven't opposed. But these thrill-killers are a different animal. This is a moral issue. Remember the first Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Poppy Bush drew a line in the sand? You could question the motives for the war, but not the conduct of the operation. Under the direction of General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, a force of 675,000 troops from twenty-eight countries was assembled to fight Saddam Hussein's brutally loyal Republican Guard. After getting their asses kicked out of Kuwait, the Iraqi army retreated in a single-file column, making it easy for US fighter jets to transform them into one long smoking strip of bacon in the desert, the final indignation for non-pork eaters. I've noticed the same single-file progression of ISIS through Iraq. Perhaps the Schwarzkopf strategy can be dusted off one more time and air strikes could be used to create even more lines of crispy critters in the sand. Better still, the CIA could start a blood feud between ISIS and Al Qaeda and let them shoot it out among themselves. There is no negotiating with someone missing their soul. It may come as a surprise, but this pacifist says, "smoke 'em." Nothing deters a terrorist quite like death.