So I had a fairly unnerving line of thought recently. Let’s consider a few lessons from the last decade or so
- It is impossible to reform Islamic nations into peaceful democracies (see Iraq and Afghanistan) as peaceful leaders in the region are inevitably shot by the populace
- Islamic dictators are evil (exemplified by using chemical weapons on their own people), Islamic gangs (ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda) are worse
- The removal of an Islamic dictator will eventually result in either another dictator or rule under an Islamic gang (since anyone not brutal enough ends up dead)
- We cannot accept large numbers of Islamic refugees (most recent examples see California and New Years Eve in Europe)
- The various Islamic factions are fighting proxy wars in Syria and Iraq
- Iran is seeking nuclear capabilities,
- While Sunni Saudi Arabia does not have nuclear capabilities Sunni Pakistan does
So one sickening possibility is that the proxy war in Syria and Iraq expands further as Iran develops nuclear capabilities. It would probably be impossible to contain such an escalation, especially difficult to prevent engagement from Pakistan under Nuclear provocation. However, even so the best we could do as a nation is to entirely remove the existing power structure since Islamic nations cannot be converted into peaceful democracies. Even then though the best that can happen for the region is a series of evil Islamic dictators. We cannot accept refugees given the inherent danger to our own nation meaning millions who would otherwise flee would not be able to.
This entire scenario is sickening. However, our options are limited
- Support one particular dictator or gang (i.e. Assad or Gaddafi)
- Force short-lived regional democracies (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan)
- Take in refugees (like Germany and UK)
- Allow regional collapse and the coincident collapse of Islam altogether as a failed ideology
I cannot think of a more sobering scenario. We know intuitively that we cannot morally support 1, and that 2 is irrational. We are rapidly learning that 3 is so far outside of our national interests as to be considered out of bounds. Additionally if the conflict is regional (covering North Africa through Pakistan) then we would not be capable of accomplishing 2 or 3. Unless there is something I am missing we are practically limited to option 4. However, that single sterile sentence masks the potential loss of untold millions of lives. If there is an escalation of the current situation what should we do as a nation? What do we expect of our leaders? How would Rubio lead compared to Cruz or Trump?