By Paul Johnson (copied from Dec 28, 2015 issue of Forbes Magazine, w/o permission)

ISIS IS THE CLOSEST phenomenon to absolute evil the world has known. Although its leaders claim to be Muslims and to worship Allah, it recruits from among atheists. Many of its most fanatical followers practice no religion and have criminal records. For them the attraction is that ISIS helps them avoid detection, provides them with automatic weapons, bomb belts and sophisticated explosives and enables them to engage in the large-scale destruction of human life and property.

ISIS has the capacity to transform petty criminals into master criminals and then give them opportunities to demonstrate their new skills. The religious dimension to ISIS, though spurious, is essential to its success. As an ostensibly stalwart upholder of the Sunni branch of Islam, ISIS claims the mantle of orthodoxy and the right to murder non-Sunni Muslims of all kinds and infidels (Western Christians, Orthodox Christians, Jews and so-called pagans) and to confiscate their possessions. Its claim to Sunni status also gives ISIS access to the heartlands of Arab oil wealth. Rich Gulf oil states funded ISIS’ original launch as a worldwide criminal organization and continue to fund it. The money isn’t supplied by governments per se but by individuals who directly benefit on an enormous scale from oil money.

Of course, ISIS now controls some of the oilfields and can get at the source of its funds directly. But its appeal as the vengeful punisher of Islamic heresy and the fierce opponent of its enemies continues to matter and is the principal source of the prestige and fear it generates.

ISIS is thus a religious-financed body, whose foot soldiers are atheists mouthing Islamic slogans and working (and dying) for ISIS because it allows them to quench their bloodlust in its flames.

Only two entities have had much success in standing up to ISIS. One is the rump of the old Syrian state, controlled by the Assad family, which has access to modern weapons via its backer, Russian President Vladimir Putin. The other is the Kurdish fighters who operate along the Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi borders and who are inspired by a genuine nationalism that gives this group a self-sustaining drive akin to ISIS’ own. The Kurds, however, want to set up their own state, to which Turkey is implacably opposed.

Organizing an effective anti-ISIS coalition will therefore require a coalition leader of worldwide resources–military and financial–stature, authority and diplomatic skill. Only the U.S. has the ability to take this on in the way such a role was originally conceived by Dwight Eisenhower, both as military commander and as President, and later by some of his successors, notably Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Unfortunately, President Obama completely fails to measure up to the character requirements demanded by his natural position as world leader.

It’s astonishing that Vladimir Putin has been able to play a major role in the Middle East, upstaging Obama completely. Because, with the exception of nuclear firepower, Russia isn’t in the same league as the U.S. For example, it has only 230,000 active army personnel, compared with the U.S. Army’s 539,450. Its navy personnel total 130,000; the U.S. Navy, 326,800. And its air force is made up of a mere 148,000 people, compared with the U.S.’ 334,550. Russia spends only $70 billion a year on defense, whereas the U.S. pays out nearly ten times that amount–$581 billion.

WHENCE COMETH OUR HOPE?

These figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ annual report underscore how little the U.S. has to show for its expenditures. And why is this? Because Barack Obama is one of the weakest chief executives in U.S. history, cowering in the Oval Office before the magnitude of his nation’s problems and his inability to face them. The result is that ISIS has been allowed to appear to be a threat of incomparable magnitude–one beyond the physical resources of the West.

This is, of course, nonsense, but that needs to be demonstrated by one of the West’s leaders. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, has virtually ruled herself out with her foolish policy on refugees. France’s president, François Hollande, is still shell-shocked by the terrorist attacks in Paris. This leaves Great Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron.

Cameron recently won an election and leads a one-party government. Has he the character, determination and clarity of vision–all things Obama obviously lacks–to take the lead and adopt a Churchillian role? We must pray that he has and that he’ll step into the breach Obama has left in the world’s defenses.