by Robert Emmet Meagher, The Boston Globe
The first result of these words would be confusion. What could he possibly mean by “stop” that would not involve lethal force? The Islamic State forces, we know all too well, possess advanced weaponry, including M1 tanks and surface-to-air missiles, and have shown no scruples in using them. They are not, in short, pacifists. Clearly, the “means” of stopping them must, in the pope’s words, “be evaluated.” But by whom? This the pope leaves to others, and there have been no shortage of them.
First, from within the pope’s own circle, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations in Geneva, went on record as saying “Maybe military action is necessary at this moment.” No mere paraphrase of the Holy Father’s views. “Necessary” is not the same as “licit” and “military action” sounds an awful lot like the “war” the pope ruled out. To complicate matters further, the Vatican’s ambassador to Iraq, Monsignor Giorgio Lingua, when asked about the US airstrikes, replied that “it’s good when you’re able to at the very least remove weapons from these people who have no scruples.” And exactly how is this to be accomplished? True enough, David was able to disarm Saul as he slept, but we cannot count on Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s being such a heavy sleeper…
