Bush, Trump & ISIS

I have not been posting to this blog very much recently. The main reason is that there are other sources that have been saying what I would have said, often better than I would have said it. The “Patriot Post” is a good example. Google it and check them out.

However, I have been moved to action by the repeated concept, obviously by the bumper sticker left, that ISIS would not exist if George W. Bush had not gone to war against Saddam Hussein.

It is perfectly true. But not in the way you might think.

I want to point out, that, contrary to leftist ideology, truth is not subjective. Or, at least, not all truth is subjective. For the dedicated leftist something is true if it is in agreement with the liberal narrative. In contrast, those not dedicated to leftist ideology typically try and figure out what is real and what is not independent of ideologies and narratives. (I am aware that my left-leaning friends will not accept that statement.)  The degree to which they succeed depends on how dedicated they are to digging through all the related information. Will conclusions be colored by personal perspectives? Of course. But one is going to arrive closer to a true picture if one does not start out with the conclusion.

As an historian who once was a leftist and no longer is, I prefer to go looking for data and draw my conclusions from that data, rather than start with a conclusion and go looking for data that supports the conclusion. An example is the recent flap over Donald Trump's supposed statement that he strongly favors a database of all Muslims. I have liberal friends, none of whom can be accused of being dimwitted, who listen to the interview assuming beforehand that he indeed proposed a Muslim database, and conclude that is what he definitely said and meant. However, if you listen to the interview with the mindset that you want to find out exactly what he said, and probably meant, you come to a very different conclusion. It is not exactly a subtle difference.

As an aside, I wouldn't be greatly surprised if Trump had intended to state that he favored a Muslim database. I am not a big fan of Donald Trump.  He has done one very positive thing. He has demonstrated that opposing political correctness is a winning strategy.

In returning to the question of whether ISIS would exist if Bush had not defeated Saddam Hussein, we have to look at what the region might, indeed, probably would, have looked like had Bush not set the dogs of war loose.

It must be remembered that, prior to the first Gulf War, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam had the fourth most capable military in the world, behind the U.S., China and Russia. The only reason he was turned back from Kuwait, and all the rest of the countries in that direction including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, was the U.S. Military. H.W. Bush bowed to political pressure, both international and domestic, and did not finish the job. During the Clinton years Saddam was allowed to rebuild his military strength to at least its pre-Gulf War I strength and begin the development of WMD's.

A brief rabbit trail, here. Contrary to the US leftist narrative, and in the opinion of every intelligence service in the free World, Saddam was definitely in the process of developing chemical, biologic and nuclear WMD's.

In all probability, and almost without doubt, had W. Bush not finished the job his father started, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and maybe Lebanon) would all have been under Saddam Hussein rule. Iran and Libya would have remained under the tyrannies to which they were subject at the beginning of Gulf War II, and Egypt would have been under the dictatorship of someone similar to Gamal Abdel Nasser.

But W. Bush went to war and defeated Saddam Hussein, spoiling all of his expansionist ambitions. It is important to note that Saddam patterned his Bath party after Hitler's Nazis party and his determination to expand Iraqi territory after Hitler's plans for German expansion.

Following Gulf War II, a sizable military presence remained in Iraq in order to provide security within which a new form of government could be created, and to serve as a deterrent to the re-emergence of Al'Qaeda, the Taliban, or other “radical” Islamic groups in the region. “Radical” is in quotes for a reason. More on that later.

Along comes Barak Hussein Obama who campaigned on ending the military presence in Iraq, and did as he promised. With the result that the security bubble Iraq needed to stabilize collapsed and a power vacuum into which “radical” Islamic groups could form or re-group was created.

In parallel with that, was the rise of additional "radical" Islamic groups during the wildly misnamed "Arab Spring".  Two of the results of the US supporting that movement was the destabilization of Egypt and the complete destruction of the Libyan government.

I put “radical” in quotes because the term communicates a false impression. The claim that “most Muslims are peaceful” is mainly true. Most Muslims are like everybody else in the World. They just want to be left alone to live their lives and raise their families. Most Muslims did not grow up Muslim by choice. While it is possible to live as an infidel (non-Muslim) in Islamic countries, it is not the least bit pleasant. If you want to prosper in an Islamic country you have to be Muslim.

“Radical” Muslims are those that, well, radically adhere to the Quran and Sharia Law. Jihad is very much a part of both.

There are approximately 1.5 billion (with a “b”) Muslims in the World. There are credible estimates that about 25% of those Muslims sympathize with the “radical” Muslims. That would be about 375 million Muslims. In all numbers, that looks like this: 375,000,000. The entire US population is about 323 million.

Estimates, again, those that are credible, place active terrorist Muslims at about 5% of the Muslim population, or about 75 million.

So, if you create power vacuum just about anywhere in the Middle East, you are creating a huge opening for Jihadi Muslims to establish their much desired Caliphate backed up by 375 million sympathizers and a Worldwide guerilla army of about 75 million. Which is precisely what ISIS is attempting to do. So far they have been pretty successful.

The situation we have now is that we have a strong Iran, who is a major contributor to terrorist activity and is developing nuclear weapons; Syria partitioned between ISIS, the rebels opposed to Assad, and Assad; Egypt with a very shaky government attempting a balance between the “radical” Muslims and the rest of the population which is about as moderate as Muslims get; Iraq in utter disarray with various areas controlled by bordering countries, the Kurds in the north, and most of western Iraq controlled by ISIS; and Libya in complete chaos.

This is a very dangerous situation.

Returning to the opening premise, it is true that ISIS would not have existed if the US, under the leadership of George W. Bush, had not defeated Saddam Hussein.

It is equally true that ISIS would not have existed if Barak Hussein Obama had continued George W. Bush's initiatives.