LEADERSHIP

So there's Donald Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence, sitting for an interview with Lesley Stahl. She wants to know how they're going to handle ISIS.

"I will declare war on ISIS," Trump declares.

Stahl wants to know if that means he will put American boots on the ground.

Not at all necessary, it turns out.

Trump will get the countries surrounding ISIS—and NATO (if those guys are still around; Trump doesn't seem to care if NATO exists or not)—to do the dirty work of eradicating ISIS.

He then goes on a rant to explain how ISIS was created by Hillary Clinton. (With Obama along for the ride.)

Mike Pence pipes up to congratulate Trump on his leadership skills.

Leadership, baby. You gotta love it!

Here's how Trump does it: "Hey, everybody, check out this problem! [Trump looks around, and points.] You, you, and you—get in there and take care of it!"

That's leadership! Identify a problem and get some guys to fix it. Just that simple.

It starts by locating a problem. Trump, famously, invented Mexico and its illegal immigrants. Nobody had ever heard of Mexico before he came on the scene.

Trump also noticed Islamic radicals, and pointed out how they could be a danger to us.

Shear genius at work!

Muslims were completely off everybody else's radar, but you can't stop Trump from ferreting out the really esoteric threats to America.

Unfortunately, Trump's plan for dealing with ISIS sounds a lot like: "Hey, let's you and him fight!"

Maybe this is how he thinks it's supposed to work. Not surprising: If, in his "real" life, he spots a problem, he just tells his guys to take care of it.

And they do!

But remember, those guys work for Trump. They get paid by Trump. They might even expect some bonuses and perks for jumping in there and taking care of whatever it is that's got the boss's panties in a twist.

In the other real world, what is it that will cause those countries bordering the Islamic State to rush in with guns blazing? Everybody in the region is a Muslim of some form. ISIS is exclusively populated by the majority faction of Islam, so it's easy to see how a lot of the local population might be reluctant to go against them.

And what's NATO's motivation? If Turkey, none too stable these days, were to claim it had been invaded by the IS, does that mean NATO (Turkey's a member) would step in to help out? Forcing Turkey to team up with their arch enemies, the Kurds?

Is the US going to pay those countries—and NATO—to fight our war?

Another glitch: I surmise that Trump's beef with ISIS is that they send fighters to hurt Americans.

If fact, it's the Americans who are killing Americans in this country, for the most part. Americans inspired by ISIS propaganda.

And by propaganda, I don't mean lies. It's perfectly true that ISIS is under attack by America (and other Western countries).

Now Trump wants to declare formal war on ISIS. (Or, at least, get Congress to do it, because he can't, by law, do it himself.)

After a declaration of war it doesn't matter who actually pulls the trigger on our behalf, America will be the aggressor-of-record. Every dying ISIS fighter will cry out for revenge against America.

And they'll get it, too.

ISIS doesn't have an Air Force, so those guys have to get in there and muck about with guns and knives to get the job done. None of this "death from above" nonsense. Those guys are real, hands-on heroes. They fight with honor for a deeply-held religious cause. (As annoying at that might sound, it's really kind of true. Certainly they believe it.)

Americans, on the other hand, are cowards who drop bombs from planes or fire missiles from drones flown by guys in Nevada. It's so unfair a fight even a moderate Muslim might be moved to retaliate.

Just the fading memory of a vanquished ISIS may inspire the faithful of every new generation to attack Americans wherever they are.

Trump's leadership will get a lot of American civilians killed, but maybe that's the way it has to be.

But wait, there might be a bonus!

What if a concerted effort to blast ISIS off the face of the earth serves to start Armageddon and bring Jesus of Nazareth back to the world? No devout evangelical President or Vice President could ever object to that.

(In the interview with Lesley Stahl, Trump made a point of touting his religious credentials.)

And if the world is destroyed and Jesus fails to make an appearance? Oh, well. Worth a shot, right? Christians have to do whatever they can to shape the story of the universe.

Besides: In the end, everybody dies anyway.

So, what's the difference?