THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ON THE ISLAMIC STATE: “I WAS FOR IT UNTIL I WAS AGAINST IT”?

8/21/14

The Wall Street Journal editorialized this morning (Friday, 8/21/14, “So What Will You Do, Mr. President”) that the U.S. should “do what it takes to defeat these enemies of American and a civilized world.”  The editorial urged President Obama to take some concrete action, apparently beyond the air strikes he has already authorized, to defeat the Islamic State (“IS”), the band of terrorist thugs and crazies also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”) and the Islamic State in the Levant (“ISIL”) depending on the day and the mood of the politicians and the media.

Even hard core non-interventionists like yours truly are at the point at which we would advocate some action, including heavy and concentrated U.S. air strikes, against IS, especially in the wake of IS’s unspeakable beheading of American citizen and journalist James Foley.   We have few arguments with the Wall Street Journal in that regard, though we suspect the Journal would like to see more than air strikes; the Journal has long seemed to back a recommitment of U.S. ground troops to Iraq after loudly protesting the withdrawal of our troops from the untenable nation.

The Wall Street Journal’s argument weakens, however, when we consider that, just a few months ago, that voice of the neocons was arguing for air strikes in support of IS in Syria.  The Journal wanted the U.S. to conduct air strikes to support the rebels against Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose most salient opponent in Syria was not the reportedly “moderate” Free Syrian Army, but the already radicalized ISIS.   While the Journal, and the neocons for which it is the major mouthpiece, expressed no sympathy for ISIS, the actions it advocated, and the toppling of Mr. Assad in which it helped those actions would result, would have been an injection of some pretty high-powered steroids into ISIS and its zeal to terrorize and radicalize the Middle East.

Further, the Journal was all for the American invasion of Iraq, perhaps the most salient result of which was the establishment of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into IS.  See 8/19/14’s DAN COATS BLASTS THEISLAMIC STATE…BUT IGNORES HIS OWN CULPABILITY at Rant Lifestyle.

The Journal and its neocon fellow travelers first prescribed an action that created the Islamic State.  Now they want to fight the Islamic State in Iraq but ally ourselves with the Islamic State in Syria.  Such apparently contradictory advocacy does not appear contradictory at all to those of us who believe that the basic neocon tenet is “Any way, any time, anywhere”…as long as the arms merchants, who support neocon pols and the neocon movement in general, can make some money.