Monday, September 29, 2014

Expanding the moral paradigm


Johnathan Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon, 2012), argues for expanding moral paradigms. Ethics consists of three broad approaches: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue. He focuses on the first two. Deontological ethics emphasize duty or rules. The best known philosophical approach to deontology is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, which enjoins one to do only that which everyone should do in that same situation. Theological ethics are another form of deontology: it is the believer's duty to act in accordance with God's instructions. Utilitarianism, in its several forms, emphasizes doing that which will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Haidt contends that deontology and utilitarianism are both incomplete and that neither accords with how the human mind actually functions. Citing multiple studies, Haidt insists that humans form reasons post hoc (i.e., after acting) to justify what they have already done.

Instead, Haidt identifies six pairs of constructs that he believes shape human morality:

  • Care/Harm;
  • Fairness (has two components, equality and proportionality)/Cheating;
  • Loyalty/Betrayal;
  • Authority/Subversion;
  • Sanctity/Degradation;
  • Liberty/Oppression.
Haidt then explores how people who weight these values (another term for virtue) differently hold divergent political views. Liberals emphasize Care/Harm and to a substantially lesser degree Fairness (understood in terms of equality)/Cheating and Loyalty/Betrayal. Intriguingly, Conservatives generally place an approximately equal emphasis on all six pairs (they understand Fairness more in terms of proportionality than equality).

The six pairs of virtues/harms Haidt identified represent an interesting candidate for a catalogue of the virtues, a catalogue with a strong neurological, sociological, and psychological basis. Is the catalogue comprehensive?

The six pairs of virtues/harms Haidt identified also provide a useful paradigm for conversing with people who hold different political, religious, or ethical views, a framework that invites conversation about common ground, disagreements, and why one weights the virtues/harms in a particular manner.

Most importantly, when used as a checklist to shape thinking and comments about ethics, the six pairs of virtues/harms Haidt identified can helpfully and intentionally expand one's thinking about morality. Moral issues often have a complexity lost in the oversimplification that characterizes much contemporary discourse (this unfortunately includes much preaching and biblical exegesis!).

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Yet another immoral war in the Middle East


President Obama, in a speech to the nation on the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, declared that the United States is engaged in a war to degrade and then to destroy ISIL – the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. As an American Christian committed to working for peace, I objected to Obama's declaration for two reasons.

First, Obama wrongly characterized ISIL as a terrorist organization. Thankfully, he and other administration officials have since altered their language; they now describe ISIL as an insurgency instead of as a terrorist organization. Unfortunately, the image of ISIL as a terrorist group persists.

Accurate terminology is important. Terrorist organizations are non-state actors who commit violent acts against innocent civilians to advance the group's political agenda by manipulating a government. Insurgents seek to overthrow the existing government and to replace it with their own government or state. An insurgency may begin as a terror group, but, unlike a terror group, an insurgency establishes a government and controls territory. Accurately defining the problem is essential because effective counterterrorism requires implementing a different strategy and tactics than does a counterinsurgency.



ISIL has committed appalling atrocities on a significant scale. In the West, the highest profile examples of those atrocities are the beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker. However, those beheadings are only three of hundreds of beheadings that ISIL personnel have performed in addition to their other reprehensible actions that include the attempted genocide of a religious minority (the Yadizis), misogynist policies toward women, etc.

Visceral revulsion to ISIL's horrendous actions is an insufficient justification for waging war. Instead, Just War Theory's jus ad bellum framework provides Christians a paradigm for assessing when war, of which counterinsurgency is one type, is ethically justifiable. There are six jus ad bellum criteria; a just war must satisfy all six.

The first jus ad bellum criterion is that a war must have a just cause. Historically, just cause connoted a sovereign state defending its territory in response to an incursion by another state. More recently, many Christian ethicists have advocated expanding just cause to include defending innocents against an egregiously abusive state, e.g., in the case of genocide.

ISIL, unlike the terror organization al Qaeda from which it emerged, claims to have established a sovereign state (hence the group's name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). A caliph, presumably ISIL's leader, will govern the new state; ISIL sees this caliph as the successor to the Muslim caliphs who ruled much of the Middle East and North Africa prior to the European colonial era. ISIL has attempted genocide against people under its rule, establishing prima facie just cause for other nations to intervene.

The second jus ad bellum criterion is that those waging a just war should have right intent, i.e., intend to establish a more just, fuller peace. On this point, the case for waging war against ISIL is more problematic. President Obama in his speech to the nation emphasized the need to protect Americans and American interests in the Middle East. A significant part of the American presence in the Middle East is because of the oil there.

However, other reasons for the American presence and interest in the Middle East are less self-serving. ISIL's agenda includes reestablishing a caliphate and obeying their interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) that mandates killing all Jews and Christians in Muslim lands and killing all apostate Muslims, i.e., Shiites and moderate Sunnis. The global community has an ethical and legal responsibility to protect the innocent.

The third jus ad bellum criterion is that right authority must declare the war. Right authority connotes a state's political authority, e.g., in the US, the Constitution specifies that Congress alone has the authority to declare war. With the world becoming flat (to use Thomas Friedman's memorable metaphor), Christian ethicists have begun discussing the merit of redefining right authority in international terms.

President Obama claimed that Congressional authorization to hunt down those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and to prevent future terror attacks gave him authority to take military action against ISIL. If ISIL is not a terrorist organization, Obama's reliance on the post-9/11 Congressional action becomes more tenuous. Alternatively, some Constitutional scholars believe that a President has the authority and responsibility, without waiting for Congress to declare war, to defend the nation against possible attack. In either case, Obama requested Congress to fund, and thereby to endorse, his proposed military actions against ISIL. The Obama administration is concurrently striving to form a broad international coalition to participate actively in efforts to destroy ISIL.

The fourth jus ad bellum criterion is that a just war is proportional, i.e., a just war should cause less harm than would otherwise occur. Predicting the amount of harm that military action against ISIL will cause, particularly the harm to innocents euphemistically known as collateral damage, is difficult. However, given ISIL's brutal (though short) record and lengthy list of enemies, battling ISIL would have to result in highly improbable amounts of collateral damage to become credibly disproportional.

The fifth jus ad bellum criterion is that a just war is the last resort. ISIL shows no sign of being open to negotiation. ISIL is committed to the violent overthrow of Iraq and Syria; ISIL is similarly committed to the full implementation of its extremist version of Sharia.

Following its military successes and territorial grabs, ISIL now earns about $11 billion annually selling oil on the world market. Selling that oil requires the cooperation of other nations as intermediaries and buyers. One hopes that no developed nation would buy oil directly from ISIL. Likewise, purchasing arms with funds generated by oil sales requires third party assistance to first purchase and then to deliver the arms to ISIL. Stopping ISIL from selling oil and purchasing arms are two steps, short of waging war, which the US and other states, working cooperatively, can take toward significantly degrading ISIL's warfighting capacity and ability to sustain a viable government. These efforts, even if fully successful, will probably fall short of destroying ISIL.

The final jus ad bellum criterion is that a just war must have a reasonable chance of success. Waging war to end horrendous evil in the absence of a reasonable chance of success simply increases the total amount of harm, death, and suffering without moving the world closer to peace.

The US and its coalition partners do not have a reasonable chance of success against ISIL. This was the second and more basic reason that I objected to Obama's declaring the US would conduct military operations to degrade and then to destroy ISIL. The US invasions and extended occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the futility of outside forces, even with vast military superiority, attempting to force regime change on an unwilling people.

Only the people of Iraq, Syria, and the adjacent Muslim countries can defeat ISIL. These are the people ISIL threatens most directly and who have the most to lose from ISIL's continuing military successes.

Contrary to what media reports infer, ISIL has significant support among Sunnis in Syria and Iraq, as its military successes demonstrate. ISIL's repeated defeats of Iraq illustrate why success against ISIL is unlikely. Iraq has a large standing army and a small air force. The US has spent billions of dollars equipping Iraq's military and a decade training them. Theoretically, Iraq's military has strong motives for defeating ISIL at any cost. Iraq's fate as a nation hinges upon ISIL's defeat. More importantly, a disproportionately large percentage of Iraqi military personnel are Shiites whom ISIL considers apostate Muslims deserving of death. Yet ISIL, in spite of fighting without an air force, without billions of dollars' worth of modern equipment, and without the benefit of foreign military advisors and training often defeats Iraq in battle. Indeed, ISIL's forces consist primarily of fighters ISIL recruited locally in Iraq and Syria. ISIL's few hundred volunteers from Europe and North America are not decisive for ISIL's military successes. Similarly, ISIL initially scrounged most of its weapons and munitions locally in Iraq and Syria.

Arab nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia) agreeing to provide air power in the fight against ISIL represents a positive development. The US has sold billions of dollars' worth of warplanes to Saudi Arabia and trained Saudi pilots and maintenance personnel. If Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight ISIL, this exposes the hypocrisy of US arms sales. If Saudi Arabia is reluctant to play a prominent role in the fight against ISIL, this bodes ill for the odds of success and stability in the Middle East. Air power may retard the pace of insurgents' victory, but air power alone has never defeated any insurgency.

Ending the evil of ISIL represents an opportunity for Sunnis and Shiites, and Sunni and Shiite dominated governments, to cooperate in opposing a common threat. Also, the US should enlist Iran, the world's most populous and powerful Shiite state, in efforts against ISIL. This might constructively expand US-Iranian engagement, lead to progress in efforts to limit nuclear proliferation, allow Iran to exercise positive hegemony among Shiites, and, in time, diminish Iranian support for Shiite terror groups. Diplomatic overtures along these lines arguably incarnate what Jesus meant by loving one's enemies.

The sine qua non for defeating an insurgency is that the governments and peoples the insurgency threatens must have the will to win. Otherwise, the insurgency continues to expand, gaining military strength as it gains control of territory, people, and other resources. Obviously, the will to win has been lacking in Iraq. Arab nations who succumb to US pressure to join the fight against ISIL will generally lack the will to win. No war is just unless those fighting for justice have a reasonable chance of success.

As a Christian actively working for peace, I find myself repeatedly humbled in the face of situations, such as the insurgency waged by ISIL in the Middle East, for which I can see no viable, ethical solution that will speedily end or prevent great suffering. So, what is a Christian to do?

First, pray fervently and daily for peace.

Second, openly endorse and aid faithful Muslims who denounce ISIL as an aberrant and evil expression of our shared Abrahamic tradition.

Third, oppose government actions that may appear well intentioned and expedient but are unjust when measured against Christian ethical traditions (both pacifism and Just War). US Christians can lobby their members of Congress to oppose waging war against ISIL because the war is unjust. Concurrently, US Christians can advocate humanitarian aid for refugees fleeing ISIL and policies to encourage nations directly threatened by ISIL to act to end the insurgency.

Fourth, trust God. Julian of Norwich usefully reminds us that All shall be well, all manner of things shall be well.

Monday, September 22, 2014

What the rate of voter participation indicates

Scots widely recognized that the referendum to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom was very important. Scottish friends invariably mentioned the issue in conversations with me; the British media, especially in the last few months before the referendum featured stories about the referendum.

Given the referendum's importance, I'm not terribly surprised that voter turnout was 84.5%, the highest in British history. Equally impressive, voter registration in Scotland is 97% of those eligible to register. Direct democracy, at least on this one occasion, worked well in Scotland, giving Scots their relationship of choice with the rest of the United Kingdom.

In the United States, we sadly take far less interest in governance and elections. Less than two-thirds of those eligible actually register. Of registered voters, only about 60% vote in federal elections in which we elect a president; participation plummets to about 40% in mid-term federal elections.

A friend recently lamented the US going to war against ISIL without Congress (the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war) or the President eager to take responsibility for embarking on a potentially lengthy war with a poorly understood strategy and even a vaguer sense of what the US has to do win the war.

It would appear that US voters reap what they sow. Disinterest and lack of involvement result in elected officials more concerned about winning the next election that doing what is right. Americans (and the rest of the world) deserve better.

In a democracy, the only way in which God can influence the choice of a government is through the electorate. Failing to register, failing to stay informed about the issues, failing to vote in every election, and failing to communicate your views to your elected officials on a regular basis are all forms of sin, i.e., missing the mark on what God desires God's people to do.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Why be religious?


Contrary to the opinions of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hichens, religion arguably provides an edge or religion would not have appeared and then persisted in almost all cultures. Moral psychologist Johnathan Haidt makes that argument very strongly in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon, 2012).

Haidt's analysis is worth reading. Carefully nuanced and well documented, his position offers a strong counterpoint to scientific reductionism. If religion, as most of the New Atheists, contend is the source of most of the evil in the world and has nothing to contribute to human development, why is some form of religion pervasive throughout the wide diversity of human cultures? Why does religion continue to exist?

Logically, if religion disadvantages its adherents, then natural selection, whether genetically or culturally, should work against religion's continuing existence. (Incidentally, Haidt demonstrates that the emergence of human culture has greatly expedited the speed of genetic evolution, implying that religion, if it contributed nothing to survival, should disappear quickly.)

In brief, Haidt maintains that religion, by creating and sustaining human community, advantages its adherents. In community, kinship altruism broadens to become reciprocal altruism. Communities, especially religious communities, promote loyalty, discourage cheating, and encourage both fairness and caring, all of which advantage religious persons over the non-religious. Haidt's analysis begins with the work of Hume and Durkheim and ends by citing numerous contemporary studies that support his views.

Importantly, Haidt's conclusions do not depend upon theological propositions or particular expressions of religion. Instead, he approaches the issue scientifically, building upon sociological, psychological, and neurological theory and research.

Haidt's work complements that of Harold Koenig at Duke who focuses upon the health benefits of religion. Koenig's work is centered on individuals; Haidt's work centers on communities. Both are functional analyses that seek to determine what role religion plays in human life. Haidt completely ignores the issue of God; Koenig recognizes that although his work is suggestive of God's existence, the best he can demonstrate is correlation between belief and health.

Reading Haidt's book prompted two sets of musings:

  1. Most human behavior is selfish. The New Atheists claim that all human behavior is selfish, i.e., driven by genes attempting to replicate themselves. Richard Dawkins' memorably titled The Selfish Gene, for example, makes this argument. Haidt contends that some human behavior is also groupish, i.e., motivated by loyalty to the group. He delineates cultural and genetic evidence in support of this view. Groupish behavior explains why voters, contrary to widely held expectations, do not always vote in ways that best align with self-interest. Poor rural whites exemplify this incongruity, who tend to support tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and to oppose expanding potentially beneficial government transfer programs. What is wrong with encouraging religious commitment based on the advantages that it confers to members of religious communities? Perhaps Victoria Osteen, wife of the infamous megachurch pastor Joel Osteen, was correct when she suggested that church attendance should be more about what makes the worshipper happy and less about what God wants. Although that appears to fly in the face of conventional theology, God does want what is best for humans; why not be more open and direct about the benefits of religious participation?
  2. How would I systematically describe the benefits of being religious? What's your answer to that question? Here's my first effort at answering: The benefits of being religious are that (1) religion provides a caring, loyal community in which to live; (2) religion correlates with living a longer, healthier life; (3) religion provides one with a set of values (or virtues) that arguably lead to a fuller, richer life with greater prospects of passing those qualities to future generations; and (4) religion offers a framework for making sense of one's life. Haidt maintains that morality is pluralism, i.e., there are shared values but there are also multiple ways to balance those values, none of which is inherently superior to all others. This view coheres well with the proposition, advocated in previous Ethical Musings' posts, that there are many different paths to God. Obviously, the fourth benefit of religion - that it offers a framework for making sense of one's life - raises the questions of whether God exists, how one can experience God (if God does exist), and what that experience means for living.

Monday, September 15, 2014

The Bible and Ecology


Reflecting on forty years of preaching, I realized that the content of my sermons has changed in several ways. One of the most important changes is that I talk less about experiencing the divine presence in and through nature and more about human responsibility for the natural world. Four theses influenced my homiletical shift.
First, God created the world and thought it good. This thesis is basic Christian theology. Yet, too often Christians (like me) have only paid it lip service. Scripture, tradition, and reason agree that any creation of a good God would possess an inherent goodness and value. Consequently, all nature—whether alive or not—is both good and valuable.

This thesis complements my prior homiletic emphasis on natural revelation. Emphasizing natural revelation does not preclude highlighting nature's goodness and value, but my earlier thinking, preaching, and teaching seldom explicitly addressed those ideas. Instead, I tended to speak of the earth and cosmos as a means of revelation (that is, an instrumental good) ignoring that they also possessed an inherent goodness in their own right.

Second and a corollary of my first thesis, when God delegated dominion over nature to humans, God appointed humans as God's stewards. God thereby entrusted us to act on God's behalf in caring for and preserving nature. I consciously reject the notion that this delegation of authority justifies the unlimited exploitation, perhaps even destruction, of nature. Polluting rivers so badly that they burn (an obviously unnatural condition that happened with the Cuyahoga River more than a dozen times since 1868), air to become so foul that it causes severe respiratory problems for creatures (including humans) whose very life depends upon breathing, and extirpating species at an unprecedented rate is both sinful and indisputably bad stewardship. Even as a youth, while cherishing Maine's scenic beauty that surrounded my home I keenly felt the irony of living less than half a mile from one of the nation's ten most polluted rivers.

The prevalent first century Palestinian concept of stewardship, the concept of stewardship that Jesus presumably had in mind when he talked about stewards and stewardship, presumed that a steward had a right to draw a living from the assets that the owner had entrusted to the steward's care. In other words, good stewardship is prima facie compatible with the general principle of using nature to sustain and to enrich human life. However, this prerogative does not mean that humans have an unfettered, unlimited, unilateral claim to the earth and all that dwell thereon. A good steward cares for and preserves the assets the owner has entrusted to the steward.

The greater the analytical granularity, the less certain are our moral judgments about what good stewardship requires, permits, and prohibits. For example, Christians divide over whether good stewardship of God's valued creation enjoins, allows, or bans humans from eating animal flesh. Instead of wasting time and energy attempting to transform religious resources into pseudo-scientific sources, or to seek uniformity in the midst of ambiguity and uncertainty, Christian communities can more profitably anticipate, encourage, and benefit from discussions of diverse opinions about the specifics of stewardship.

Third, the biblical concept of stewardship presumes a covenantal relationship between God and humans. In that covenant, God both delegates responsibility for stewardship of the earth to humans and commits to joining with humans in caring for and preserving nature. I am hopefully optimistic about the earth's future primarily because of God's involvement and secondarily because I think that humans will eventually fulfill their stewardship responsibilities with the requisite wisdom, commitment, and perseverance. Incidentally, covenant engagement with God as earth's stewards constitutes an initial step toward reclaiming an essential ethical principle that the Church too often has marginalized by equating stewardship with giving God gifts of treasure (and sometimes time and talent) in the annual pledge campaign.

Richard Niebuhr's succinct summary of the purpose of the Church and its ministry (to promote the love of God and neighbor) has shaped my ministry. Connecting the purpose of the Church and its ministry to the principle of stewardship begins to identify loving God and neighbor with practical steps. Good stewards of the resources entrusted to their care (time, talent, treasure, and the earth itself) seek to promote the love of God and neighbor in the most efficient and effective ways possible. Efficient denotes using the fewest resources to achieve a specific goal; effective denotes achieving the goals likely to produce the greatest gains. The criteria of efficiency and effectiveness are one of way using human reason, in light of scripture and tradition, to discern God's calling. These criteria advantageously offer more practical, and potentially more reliable, heuristics for discerning God's will than do alternatives such as taking the first opportunity that presents itself, doing what feels right or appears appealing, etc. Efforts count, but so do results.

Finally, I consciously situate this stewardship ethic within the context of ecological science, because science is the only reliable lens for understanding earth's condition and the dynamics that affect it. Unlike religion, science proceeds by articulating a theory, testing the theory's reliability and validity, and then revising the theory as appropriate. For example, science alone provides the best prognostication about the amount of water that humans can annually draw from an aquifer without depleting it. Astrology, crystal balls, and prayer are no help in answering such questions. The Bible, ethics, and theology are completely silent on these topics. Instead, religious and spiritual resources, unlike science, point to the mysterious author of existence (the Creator God), offer value judgments (nature is good), and call/motivate people to be good stewards of this earth, "our fragile island home."

Indeed, ecology's capacity to illuminate potentially efficient and effective ways in which human stewards can best fulfill their covenantal responsibility to care for and preserve the earth is a vital dialectical intersection between science and religion. More broadly, the rapidly accumulating scientific evidence about the earth's deteriorating condition and diminishing capacity to support life underscores the urgency of this dialogue. Additionally, Christian scientists and activists concerned about earth's well-being have repeatedly told me that our political leaders not only welcome, but particularly listen, when people of faith speak out about ways in which we can better care for and preserve the earth.

Thus, I now intentionally and consistently strive to weave these four themes into my ministry:

(1)   God created and values all nature;

(2)   God appointed us stewards of the earth and all that dwell thereon;

(3)   God assists us in fulfilling that stewardship;

(4)   Ecological science identifies ways in which we can be good stewards by most efficiently and effectively caring for and preserving the earth.

These themes have opened the windows of familiar scripture texts in fresh ways, allowing God's light to shine with unexpected intensity and clarity.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

The challenges of living in a transitional era


David Brooks, in a recent New York Times column that recorded a conversation with Gail Collins, "Our Reluctant National Security President" (September 9, 2014) argued that recent US presidents were wrong not to have tried to strengthen the nation state system.

What neither Brooks nor Collins notes, however, is that the world is in a transitional era, moving from nation states defined by the Westphalian Peace toward an emerging global identity.

Ideological currents that transcend states (e.g., fascism, communism, religion, etc.) represent one manifestation of that transition, though these currents will probably not be definitive in the long term.

Huge multinational corporations (Apple, Royal Dutch Shell, Alibaba, etc.) that have little loyalty to any one nation and function with an increasing degree of independence from national control are another factor driving the transition.

Obviously, the internet and modern ease of transport (for goods, people, services, and ideas) are another factor driving the transition. The growing demand to protect human life (perhaps all life on earth) by responding to climate change, and perhaps to the spread of difficult to control, devastating diseases such as the Ebola virus, are other potential factors, though neither seems to have yet made much of a difference.

International organizations, (e.g., the UN, EU, OPEC, and NATO) may become another factor.

Philip Bobbitt, a Columbia University professor, argues for the existence of market states of consent (non-geographical organizations to which people voluntarily belong and hold a common value system, e.g., large scale terror groups like al Qaeda and multinational corporations) that represent the leading edge of what will replace sovereign states defined by geographic borders.

Transitional eras are inherently challenging. Old rules are of diminishing utility; new rules are not yet accepted, perhaps not even defined (e.g., in the early stages of a transition).

The same holds true for old approaches to problems. An era of nation states in which hegemonic powers exert their influence to limit evil, reduce threats to the global order, and benefit at least them and their allies is rapidly ending. The US and its allies lack the political will and resources to replicate the influence and control that European colonial powers exercised over the Middle East prior to the middle of the twentieth century.

Living in a transitional era compounds the challenges that groups like ISIS pose, limits options for responding to those challenges, and demand the risk taking inherent in trying new and untested approaches. For example, what would happen if the US and its allies declined to involve themselves in defeating ISIS, insisting that the people and states ISIS directly threatens respond?

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Defeating ISIS

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a former al Qaeda affiliate that now rules a substantial portion of Iraq and part of Syria. ISIL seeks to establish a Muslim caliphate (a country ruled by Caliph according to Muslim law), combining what is now Iraq and Syria, and potentially expanding to encompass all of the Middle East and perhaps even more territory. ISIL has quickly demonstrated its military prowess against the Iraqi and Syrian militaries. Without the support of US airpower, ISIL would have had achieved and then sustained even greater gains against Kurdish militia, to date the armed force most effective in checking ISIL.

ISIL subscribes to a radicalized Sunni version of Islam. Everyone who lives within an area subject to ISIL' jurisdiction is subject to ISIL' extreme version of Sharia, Islamic law. Muslims who do not practice ISIL' version of Islam are apostates; everyone else is an infidel. According to ISIL' version of Sharia, it is the duty of faithful Muslims to kill both apostates and infidels. ISIL' numerous beheadings reflect these beliefs.

So far, ISIL appears to be a successful insurgency and not a terrorist organization. Terror organizations commit violent attacks against innocent people to achieve political gains. ISIL rarely if ever does this. Their violence is very different from the "performance violence" of a genuine terror group. I have found no public evidence that ISIL has credibly threatened Europeans or US citizens at home. Most importantly, terror organizations do not conquer and then govern territory.

ISIL' heinous acts (e.g., beheading hundreds of people including two American journalists) rarely have demands attached. When ISIL does make demands – whether political or economic – those demands represent a form of extortion or kidnapping, not non-state terrorism as defined by experts like Harvard's Louise Richardson.

Correctly identifying ISIL as an insurgency instead of a terror organization is an essential first step in addressing the problem that ISIL poses. First, recognizing that ISIL is not a terror organization and does not directly threaten Europe or the United States means that immediate action is unnecessary. Precipitously acting to defeat ISIL would require inserting ground troops, conquering territory, and then ruling that area until a new government (or existing ineffectual governments) can assume the tasks of governance. Failure to provide interim governance would lead to a repeat of the chaos that occurred in Afghanistan and then Iraq following the US conquests in 2001 and 2003 respectively.

Second, sending more arms to Iraq is not the answer. Iraq is already one of the most heavily armed states in the world. If Iraq had fewer weapons, ISIL would have had a much more difficult time arming itself.

Third, sending more arms to Syrian rebels is also probably not the answer. The US has provided training and equipment to some of the rebels, but longer-term loyalty of those rebels is always in doubt. Many Syrian rebels hold Islamist views close to, or sympathetic with, ISIL' version of radical Islam. Like ISIL, the rebels are opposed to Assad's regime for political, religious, and other reasons.

Fourth, aiding the Kurds in their battle against ISIL may have long-term unwanted consequences. The Kurds seek their own nation, which would incorporate parts of Iraq, Turkey, etc. Supporting the Kurds in this conflict will better position them to achieve that goal, adversely affecting nations that lose people and area to the new Kurdistan. Supporting the Kurds may also be the death knell of Iraq as a unified country.

Fifth, the underlying issue is that the Middle East now consists of states whose borders European colonial powers and the US established, borders that often have little basis in history, geography, or population. The unraveling of those borders and the continuing struggle of people in that part of the world for self-determination (which is not necessarily synonymous with democracy) is not a problem that the US, NATO, the UN, or any other external coalition can solve.

Sixth, politicians (e.g., President Obama in his speech to the US on 2014 eve of 9/11) find it convenient to describe ISIL as a terrorist organization. The term evokes a visceral response from hearers, a response that condemns the group and calls for action. This usage of the term terrorist organization, by stretching the term to include very different types of threats (insurgency and terror threats) conflates very different types of problems that require very different approaches.

Much resentment toward the West exists throughout the Middle East. The West for almost a century unilaterally exploited and benefited from the Middle East's vast reserves of petroleum and then left a tragic legacy of colonial imperialism. Full of guilt over the Holocaust (which was an inexcusable moral failure by the US and European nations), the US and Western Europe used the umbrella of a nascent United Nations to impose the modern state of Israel on Palestine. Nowhere else in the world would a 2000 year old claim to land based on religious writings and from which the claimants had largely been absent for most of that time, trump people in actual possession of the land.

Consequently, ISIL is not a problem that the US acting alone or in concert with other Western nations can solve. The people, leaders, and states ISIL directly and immediately challenges must take the lead and primary responsibility for fighting against ISIL. Other nations can provide limited military assistance (e.g., some airpower or resupplies of munitions), but the fight must be fought and won by the people that ISIL would rule.

Logically and reasonably, if ISIL can fight mostly with weapons already in the area using mostly local recruits that ISIL trains and leads, then ISIL' more numerous opponents, if equally motivated, should be able to prevail with fighters they recruit, train, equip, and lead. Arguing that ISIL' opponents need Western training, leadership, or assistance reflects both Western hubris and an incorrect disdain for Arabs as inferior warriors and leaders.