President Obama says the Islamic State wants two contradictory things

In his address to the nation this evening on the continuing threat of the Islamic State, President Barack Obama claimed the Islamic State wants three things from the West:

1. "Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for."
2. "We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield."
3. "We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want."

President Obama is right to say that we cannot achieve victory over the Islamic State by "tough talk" or by "abandoning our values," however one might define them. I do not think he is right, however, to say that the Islamic State wants us to give into fear.

Last March, Graeme Wood laid out what ISIS really wants in his article of the same name. Some were skeptical of his claims when his article was first published, but his claims are proving more and more true each day. Here is, in a summary fashion, what the Islamic State wants:

Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” said a masked executioner in a November video, showing the severed head of Peter (Abdul Rahman) Kassig, the aid worker who’d been held captive for more than a year. During fighting in Iraq in December, after mujahideen (perhaps inaccurately) reported having seen American soldiers in battle, Islamic State Twitter accounts erupted in spasms of pleasure, like overenthusiastic hosts or hostesses upon the arrival of the first guests at a party.

The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who “Rome” is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. But Cerantonio makes a case that Rome meant the Eastern Roman empire, which had its capital in what is now Istanbul. We should think of Rome as the Republic of Turkey—the same republic that ended the last self-identified caliphate, 90 years ago. Other Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army, and the Americans will do nicely.

If the Islamic State awaits our forces on the plains of Dabiq to hasten the coming of the apocalypse (which it does), it certainly does not want us to give in to fear, as President Obama claims.

Curiously, he notes that the Islamic State does, in fact, want us to "be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria." This is true. How else could engage the Islamic State in battle on the plains of Dabiq if not through a ground war in Iraq?

Regarding his third claim, President Obama is also correct. The Islamic State claims - rightly or wrongly - to be the authentic expression of Islam as taught by Muhammad. As such, the Islamic State does want the West to engage in war against Islam as expressed in the Caliphate. In point of fact, the Islamic State believes the West is and has been at war with Islam for many years now.

Given these considerations, President Obama's second two claims contradict his first claim of what the Islamic State wants, yet he then calls upon the Congress of the United States of America to authorize greater military intervention against the Islamic State:

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

Whether this is a veiled request for a declaration of war against the Islamic State or not, I do not know, but it would be foolish for the Congress to authorize such military force until the Commander in Chief, his administration, and his military advisers have a proper understanding of what the Islamic State really wants.

Earlier in his address, President Obama called on the Congress to enact stricter gun control measures:

...Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

While I certainly do not wish to allow any terrorist easy access to arms, I can think of one argument against such a measure: the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The United States of America is a nation of laws and it must remain a nation of laws if it is to remain a republic.