Kudos to Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush on the Trump "Muslim ban" issue.

Listening to the GOP CNN candidate debate last night, the proposals on fighting terrorism were all over the board, but what deserves my praise is the moving spontaenous combusting of Lindsey Graham who pasionately said: "We are not at war against a religion, Islam, we are at war with the terrorists".  While I question creeping increase of boots on the ground by 10,000 he advocates, I do not oppose it if they are the right boots on the ground...special forces, and there are to support our Arab allies.  However, that is the problem, too,  Until the other day, when Saudi Arabia announced a large military coaltion of other Sunnis in the world to fight terrorists, the Arab allies have been MIA when it came to fighting ISIS.  Whether we need to increase military spending is another issue that deserves scrutiny.  Is a shortage or funding of personnel and equipment the reason we have not gone after ISIS with boots on the ground  or is that just a way  for him to make his case for more defense spending?

Jeb Bush on MSNBC this morning  on Morning Joe put the connection together that we cannot look like we are denying all Musims entry to the US because it looks like we are at war with Islam...and makes it very difficult to lead a coaltion of Arab boots on the ground.  Can we ask the Turks or Arabs or Jordanians or Gulf States to contribute troops but deny their visitors and those seeking medical aid to come to the US because they are Muslim?  I would put it even more harshly:  Trump has virtually been considered persona non grata by our European allies and Jordan, not to mention Israel.  How could he have any credibility leading such a coalition.

Rarely do I ever agree with Dick Cheney, but he, too, recently said that banning Muslims from entry to the US was harmful to our national security.  This was a direct aim at Trump.  http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/dick-cheney

A note to a reader of the blog, asking that I do not use the term ISIS.  It is a point well taken, but ISIL or daaesh  has never caught on with the general public.  In fact, spokespersons for US Muslim interests use ISIS as well.  I write for the public and I use ISIS so I do not have the bulk of my readers ask "who??"  The admimnistration makes it a point to use ISIS.  Our Arab supporters use daaesh.  If I had my druthers, I would use daaesh, too, but until ISIL is more accepted, or daaesh becomes accepted in the popular vocabulary.  My words are limited to 530 in my column and to always define the various names of ISIS means it is even harder to fit my words into the restrictive space.

A Saudi awakening?

The Saudis awakening?

One of the key components Pres. Obama says we need to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere is for Muslims themselves to take care of their terroristm problem.  In his recent address to the nation, Obama asked the Muslim world to do more within their own countries and mosques to do that.  Key to US policy is for the US Arab allies to provide the boots on the ground in our war against ISIS.

 ISIS had pledged to wipe out the gulf Arab leaders and the Saudi regime, but until recently, the Saudis had seen the fight against the Shia in Iraq and Iran as their number one concern and had only focused  military action in Yemen against a Shia insurgency.  ISIS in Syria and Iraq had kept the Shias at bay north of them, so in a way, ISIS had a positive value to the Saudis. Besides both Saudis and ISIS are Sunnis.

The irony is that the theology of ISIS, permitting killing innocents and resulting in a virtual dealth cult that gave killing of apostates (both those who did not subscribe to their theology and all non Muslims)  and death in carrying that out a shortcut to paradise, has its roots in the madras schools in Saudi Arabia.  The majority Islamic interpretation of jihad is a fight to better oneself, not to be violent. The Salafists who advocated violent jihad ran those schools inspired Al Qaeda as well as ISIS and other franchises and fellow travelers.   A broad assumption was that the Saudis gave free rein to the Salafists to preach their version of violent  jihad as a Faustian bargain that permitted the Saudi royals to stay in power.  The ISIS and terrorist action had caused the death of far more Muslims than westerners. In the meantime, since ISIS and Saudi's are fellow Sunnis and for the Saudi's to take them on is a shift from the past.  However, ISIS' success may have given them pause that they are indeed a serious threat.


That has led to an announcement from the Saudis to create an alliance of Islamic nations to take on "terorists" .The reason the Saudis gave to begin gearing up against ISIS and the terrorist ilk is that it was giving Islam a bad name.

Whatever was motivating them: pressure from Obama, ISIS becoming a threat to their security,  realizaiton that fellow Sunis were victims of ISIS aggression, or bad PR resulted in an announcement that they would lead an alliance of Islamic nations to join together to launch a coordinated military  effort to fight terrorism.  Shia, Syrians and Iraqis and Iranians were not invited to join in.

What this means is not yet known.  The fight is to be coordinated by the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, but whether it means stepping up to the plate to provide military support to the opponents of ISIS is not known. Key to defeating ISIS is putting Arab boots on the ground and whether those boots come from this new alliance is not at all clear.  At least the alliance the Saudi's announced is a hopeful step.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/saudi-arabia-unveils-islamic-military-alliance-against-terrorism-n480016