A Basic Difference in Understanding

Yesterday I read two articles, both of which dealt with the failure of the United States and the European nations to address the two most difficult and immediate concerns that face both communities which are ISIS and Russia. The most interesting aspect of each article is the difference in the conclusion the writers settle on.

The first article, written for National Review by George Will postulates that the greater threat for overall peace is Vladimir Putin of Russia. (full article is here) Mr. Will compares the psyche of Putin to Hitler and considers him the greater danger when compared to ISIS. He states that ISIS is definitely an issue, but a manageable one that could be obliterated if the surrounding Arab states turn their military efforts to that end. Putin however, is the head of a large government that commands an arsenal that includes nuclear capability and a large, modern, and conventional capability that he appears ready to utilize to achieve his goals, which are the lands and influence of the Soviet era.

The second article is by Saul Kelly (article is here) and puts forth his view that ISIS is the premier issue with which to be reckoned. His view is based on the fact that Islam is the problem that cannot be dealt with in the normal manner Western nations usually do, that is, with reason.  Western nations do not understand the nature of the Islamic threat. ISIS, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, and a score of other Islam based terrorists plus the “moderate Arabs” believe in the primal ascendency of Islam. They believe it is God’s will that they make war and defeat everyone who does not follow Islam. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and it is estimated that 25% of them may be radicalized. Even if that 25% is cut in half, we are still talking about 125 million radicals. But we need to face facts. The remaining 75% of Muslims also believe in the primacy of Islam. It does not matter that they may not be willing to put an explosive vest on their own children. They still believe Islam should conquer all infidels.

In this argument I believe Mr. Kelly is correct. Mr. Will is an atheist. He believes, or hopes, that reason and intellectual dialogue is the proper path to peace. He has no understanding of faith-based decisions. I believe Will’s course will work with Putin and Russia. Putin may be a bully and fully capable of unleashing his military forces, but he is not a fool. He will not roll the dice on a nuclear confrontation, nor will he risk his status within Russia with a military confrontation with the United States and NATO. He has gotten this far because President Obama is the worst president of the United States since the Civil War, but the liberal democrats will not stand for Obama to sabotage their changes in the next election by total inaction. They will force Obama to grow a spine; Putin may make some gains, but he will not go to war with the West. The Islamists are a totally different matter. For whatever purpose, reasonable people in the West do not choose to understand a culture that is driven by religion and especially one that espouses martyrdom and chaos.

In the 1967 Israeli-Arab war the Israeli forces destroyed the Syrians first because they considered them more dangerous. They were the most fanatical among their adversaries. Putin is a bully and a thug, but he is not a fanatic bent on total destruction and martyrdom.