Can President Obama Destroy (Or Contain) ISIS Without Angering Islam?

Obama has to figure out how to get tough with the Islamic State
 without upsetting the state of Islam?

 Islam is on the rise around the globe.

Politics is such a filthy business that I hesitate to even use the word anymore in fear of scaring really nice people away from my company.  I might talk the P word with you, but you had better 'go there' first or I just can't touch it.

Islam has become a similar word, but Barack Obama is not afraid of the word Islam and unashamed to protect its image around the world.  Let some of the birther folks tell you his story, he might be a secret Muslim from Kenya anyway.  I certainly do not share in their opinion, but would it matter if it were true (the Muslim part, not the Kenyan thing)?  If we came close to electing a Mormon president, will a Muslim have an opportunity to lead America one day?  Nothing in the law forbids it, but our difficulty with the word Muslim and the Islamic faith that they confess, has made Islam into some detestable image similar to the images we get from hearing the word, 'politics'.

With that in mind, President Barack Obama must proceed forward in a world that is becoming more and more Muslim, but less and less tolerant of them. Unlike Christianity in America, Islam is a growing religion in both America and abroad.  ISIS, as an organization, is focused on the recruitment of westerners as a tactic against westerners, and they are succeeding in their efforts. Estimates state some 2000 western recruits that are currently fighting for ISIS, including 70 Americans.   Unlike concerned Americans, British officials have begun to confiscate passports as a means of avoiding the obvious risk that comes from western recruits with free access in and out of the western countries that they detest.

Becoming disgruntled with the nature of western politics is a common experience and a common recruitment tool as well. Although evil is never done of God, anger is not inherently evil, and anger towards western ideology is worthy of discusion.  My faith says; when angry, sin not.  Islam comes from Abraham (Ishmael, the Father of Muslims, is the son of Abraham), as do Christianity and Judaism. Our God is the same, and so are the primary tenants of each religion. Our practices vary greatly from one religion to the next, but we are truly more similar than we are different. Muslims pray five times a day, and Seventh Day Adventist believe Saturday (Sabado, or Sabath), not Sunday, is the proper day in which God rested from his work.  I believe they are both correct in practice and interpretation, but confused about how these practices fit within the forgiving plan of grace.

The Islamic Jihad is no more doctrinal to Islam than the Christian Crusade was to the Bible.  Anytime a religion becomes the overriding force behind politics, the combination can be uncomfortable.  Suddenly, the things that you must do in order to secure the future of any nation state are being done in the name of religion, when politics are the true motivation.  For this reason, democratic nations have learned to separate church and state, but there IS no separating a caliphate (Islamic State).

ISIS is a name that has evolved in a matter of weeks.  What started out at as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria) was quickly modified by the Obama administration into ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant) giving consideration to the IS occupation of the expanded region called the Levant. Lately, the worldwide acceptance of the achieved caliphate has forced us to drop the last IS and recognize only the first when describing this newly formed nation.  The IS is real, and it is really growing.  Syria lost a significant swath of land to the IS, and Iraq lost land, loot and weapons that WE left behind for Iraq to maintain control of a nation they believed they could keep a grip on. In their defense, Iraq failed just like Syria failed, and as a result, the Islamic State is real.... and really hoping to draw us into a war against all of Islam.

Beheading's that encourage air strikes are a tactic that will probably achieve the fight that they are hoping for, but will it achieve the results.  9-11 teaches us that angry Americans are okay with retribution before thought, so the pressure to do something fast is always going to be stronger than the pressure to do something that will work.  It is likely that the pressure on the president to act is also designed to force him to fail.  Developing a coalition of Islamic people fighting in the righteous name of their own ideology is the proper way to wage a war against this evil, masquerading as Islam, but that could take time.  If president Obama rushes into combat without allowing Syria and Iraq to lead the way, he forces himself into protecting American lives regardless of the impact it could have on relationships within the region.  America does not have many strong allies within the heart of the middle east, but removing ISIS from their newly acquired state could go a long way towards beginning friendships in the region. Political opponents of the president have looked ahead on this matter an realize that destroying ISIS could be a huge feather in the cap of a president that's had most of his feathers plucked clean. More importantly, politicians urging the president to do something right away (but never say exactly what), seem more concerned with gaining political points than losing American lives.

This issue is bigger than politics as usual.  The world sits on a tipping point between Islam and the distorted evil that claims its name.  If the global war against terrorism becomes a war against Islam instead, choosing sides becomes the biggest source of world chaos.  The easiest way for powerful nations to turn allies into enemies is to engage in mission creep, and the easiest way to insure your mission will creep is to drop one boot on the ground.  When boots, or planes for that matter, engage war on foreign soil, attack or surveillance missions become rescue missions very quickly..

Thanks to the power of the US Air Force, especially the unmanned drone, we can wage any war with minimal boots on the ground, but we have to embrace the technology of drones more readily than we have thus far.  It is my hope that we learn to appreciate the power of winning a fight without losing our sons and daughters.  It is also my hope, and the president's, that we learn to call evil what it is and not associate it to respectable people that follow respectable religious practices.  It is very hard for president Obama to comfort angry Americans who keep watching OUR journalist die on video.  He is angry as well, but how can he say that he will destroy the Islamic State without also  instilling fear in the state of Islam? To destroy an enemy that is willing to die demands collateral damage (aka., the death of the innocent). The president has every intention to destroy this enemy, but not if it means creating a worldwide assault on Islam, and every boot that we place in middle eastern soil looks like an assault on Islam to those afraid of western Imperialism.

So what is the president to do?

Politics.

Politics is  a dirty word because it matters, much like this challenge called IS. Its called the Islamic State, but the Islamic label is purely political.  The State is the only element of worldwide concern. This military and political attacks from ISIS demand a counter campaign against it, and any good campaign deserves a campaign slogan.

I've got one.

We MUST destroy the IS of evil, and that IS who our war IS against.  Religion, especially Islam, really has little to do with this story.