ISIS Poses An Historical Dilema

The challenges we have faced in the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks bare a striking resemblance to another period in our history. It would do both our political and military leaders as well as the general public well to study our history before moving forward in our fight against ISIS.

On December 7, 1941, Japan successfully launched an attack on our western fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor. The idea behind the attack was to inflict so much military damage that our leaders would negotiate with Japanese leaders as they pursued conquering Asia. Neither the Japanese military or Al-Qaeda wanted to engage in a conventional war with our military; however, both attacks were aimed to strike enough fear into the American public's mind with the hope it would result in urging our leaders to change their political practices.

Instead, in both instances, the attacks served to unify our nation in support of wars to end extremism; fascist/empire building in World War II and religious fanaticism today. As a result, years of war followed as we worked to rid the world of foreign threats to not only us but to others in the free world.

Today, we stand at a crossroads in history. How do we handle the ISIS threat and ensure we rid the world of future threats like it? Clearly the two post 9/11 wars have not brought an end to the religious extremism behind Al-Qaeda, they merely slowed it down. Unfortunately, they did nothing to prevent the rise of a more dangerous group in ISIS.

In World War II, President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb to end our war with Japan. Europe was freed of Hitler and his supporters but Japan stubbornly fought on. While German and Italian troops surrendered in large numbers when defeat was imminent, Japanese soldiers fought to the death. When out of bullets, they did not hesitate to charge our troops with bayonets affixed to their guns and fight hand to hand. With hundreds of islands to retreat to, they had the ability to prolong the war another ten years and at a cost estimated to include the loss of another million U.S. Servicemen lives.

ISIS will retreat into densely populated cities, rugged mountains, or into hard to reach caves while waging a fight to the death with those they perceive to be infidels. They will slaughter anyone who stands in their way in the most brutal manner imaginable and post these killings on the internet for the world to see. While they may lack the numbers and military power to defeat the United States, ISIS can and will prolong their fight hoping in the process to destroy our economy due to the war's high cost here at home.

In World War II, Japan was inspired by their emperor who they believed to be divinely empowered. Today, ISIS desires to establish a new Caliphate and also believes they are divinely directed. ISIS has no problem finding volunteers to launch suicide attacks against us or innocent people in the cities and towns they seek to conquer. These murders believe they will be rewarded with an eternity in Paradise. During World War II, Japanese teenagers volunteered as Kamikaze pilots and attempted to guide engine less planes packed with explosives into American war ships. They believed they were on a holy mission and those not selected often committed harakiri out of shame.

When President Truman decided to use the first atomic bombs it was a decision made to bring an enemy to its knees while trying to limit the loss of American lives. It allowed a war weary nation to finally return home and resulted in a rebuilt Japan that has remained democratic, peaceful, and a close ally of ours. It also led to an arms race and decades long cold war between our country and the Soviet Union and would see us involved in two lengthy and costly wars in Korea and Vietnam.

To think a nuclear option is off the table in our fight against ISIS is to be naïve. How does the American public think we will rid the world of religious extremism if they only support wars that result in minimal loss of life? It has yet work.

Our next president may well be someone who has to make an incredibly difficult decision. It is clear our current president prefers to pass on making it and will watch it become part of the next presidential debate. Does our next president okay the use of nuclear weapons to rid the Middle East of fanatics while also killing massive amounts of innocent people or are U.S. troops sent in to fight door to door in urban settings resulting in high U.S. casualties? Do we fight another long war resulting in a stalemate and a line drawn much like the 38^th parallel in Korea that requires a large constant U.S. Military presence or do we annihilate an entire region and rebuild it with the hope it becomes as strong an ally as Japan is today?

In either case, history tells us what lies ahead will neither be easy or inexpensive and will shape the future of the entire planet for perhaps the remainder of the 21st century.