September 17, 2014, Update — Changes influencing “Phase One’s” recommended implementation
(This article is NOT “Phase Two” otherwise  referenced in this series.)

Subsequent to the first posting of this multiple part essay in June, 2014, a national and global management change has begun to take place. In a televised speech on September 10, 2014, the current American (USA) administration promulgated a response to the threat by ISIS, IS, ISIL. This article notices the referenced  changes in the existential situation, in this instance referring to survival activities of and by this nation and its citizenry, and adapts Phase One recommendations and supporting theory accordingly.

Changes include formal:

1. acknowledgement of a serious problem with the international entity — although locused in the Mideast, it is declared to be prospectively harmful to America — referred to as ISIS, IS, ISIL.
   
2. expression of intent, albeit absent a Congressional Declaration of War as recommended here, to destroy the hostile organization. Executive employees, for example, the office of the Secretary of State, have used the phrase “at war with” the referenced enemy, but as of 9-15-2014 without having acted with Congress to “declare war.”
   
3. establishment and use of a coalition (allies) that applies combatants other than ours as a significant component or even mainstay of the allied group; the combatants may be drawn from regional fighting forces and apparently would serve ground war capacities.
   
4. intention to support the group and predominantly allied ground effort with American and hoped for additional allied air and other power, but without commitment to the application of more formidable American ground forces like those recommended in Phase One of this series.
5. declaration of the enemy’s ideological epistemology: the executive declaimed this enemy to “NOT” be “Islamic.”
6. statements from non Executive branch and previously anti American-substantial-ground-force voices (retired General Keane on 9-13-14,  former UN Ambassador Bolton on 9-13-14, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Mike Rogers before the pronouncement) have made statements supporting the apparently more demonstrable application of American ground troops as responses to the challenge presenting both before and apparently now heightened following the televised murder by slaughter of a British aid worker.
7. release of intelligence that shows enemy combatants to be at four times the strength in warring personnel previously estimated.
8. recognition by the Secretary of State of the Executive’s appointment of a US Marine Corps general who served to coordinate coalition activities in Afghanistan, and who after retiring recently published articles on a blog supporting the allied approach to fighting ISIS.
9. authorization by the the US Executive to mission the military to target and kill noted ISIS, IS, ISIL leadership, and commence air strikes against the enemy’s forces in both Iraq and Syria, or what is now declared by the new Islamic Caliphate to be its nation state.
10. reports of growth of enemy strength by emigration from other world Islamic domains and to not just the Caliphate’s claimed geography, but as well to its stated cause: implementation of Allah’s Will as the new Caliph understands/interprets it, reconstitution of Islam to its once global status, and vanquishment of Dar al Harb — particularly America’s component of it. Symbolizing the emigrating phenomenon, mass murderer, that is Islamist Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, while in jail awaiting his death for committing workplace violence at Fort Hood, Texas, has requested apparent honorary membership in ISIS.

In addition to those changes, and since the murder of one of its citizens on video/Internet/TV, British executive management, which is a prospective member of the forming coalition, has had a meeting about the event/murder, and denounced it.

Adaptation to Phase One Recommendations

Referencing Phase One of this series of essays, Component B, but extending its action to emphasize the northern border as well, seal the south from Matamorous to Tijuana, Mexico with the referenced ground forces, air and intelligence-gathering reconnaissance into the border area in Northern Mexico. Adaptation: Do not wait for initiation of Component A of Phase One before implementation of Phase One’s Component B. Begin now.

Theory

The declaration of enemy epistemology, albeit inaccurate in its substance, by the President of the United States (referenced above in # five) has established a legal precedent for non Muslims to define, thus weigh in upon the reform of, Islam. In Phases Two and Three of this series, that government promulgation will support other rationales and authority referenced in Phase One, Theory, for contributing to that reformation’s formalization. Through and subsequent to winning this war — assuming that happens — we are going to use that precedent and others to rewrite those elements of Islam’s constitution that sustain and even mandate its aggressiveness otherwise now functioning in contradiction to basic Western law pertaining to human rights and such, ideology, and cultural norms particularly pertaining to the relationship of religion to social management. Under this approach, Muslims will give up not just the supremacy-driven and supposedly deity-directed hegemonic components of its doctrine, but any ecclesiastically-/canonically-styled claims of sanctified authority to forcibly impose that doctrine on the rest, i.e., referring to non-believers or kafirs, of civilization.

“Constitution” used here refers to the Sunnah. It is comprised of, amongst other things, the Koran, hadith, earliest biographies of the prophet, and findings and clarifications of Islamic management principles/policy/jurisprudence by the Ulema, and Shariah.