So writes Eliot Cohen of the ongoing conflict between the West and radical Islam, of which the fight against Islamic State (IS) is only one theater:

What will it take to fight this war? Begin with endurance: this war will probably go on for the rest of my life, and well into my children’s. That is an unpleasant reality, but there it is. Politicians will have to explain just how high the stakes are. The president may be right in the narrowest sense when he says that IS is not an “existential threat,” but its actions can derange our politics and cause chaos in parts of the world that we care a great deal about. If they ever acquire weapons of mass destruction (which they would like to do), they can and will kill thousands and tens of thousands rather than tens and hundreds.

We will have to understand the ideology, or rather ideologies, of our enemies. . . . [In addition], we need to stop the circumlocutions. The “violent extremists” are in fact Islamists. We do not intend to “bring them to justice” or “take them off the battlefield,” but rather to capture or kill them. Although it is true one cannot kill one’s way out of an insurgency, we are going to have to a kill a great many people—thousands, not hundreds—before we break the back of IS and kindred movements. To that end we need a long-range plan not to “contain” but to crush them. It seems fairly evident that the [Obama] administration lacks such a plan, but if it exists it is plainly failing.

It will be a long, bloody, and costly process; what is at stake is not simply our way of life in the sense of rock concerts and alcohol in restaurants, but the more fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, the equality of women, and, most essentially, the freedom from fear and freedom to think.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.