All this chatter about how we should, or should not, go about degrading and defeating the terrorist blitzkrieg of ISIS is one of the most bizarre things we’ve seen in years. It must be regarded by our enemies as a kind of manna. The Times just issued an editorial bellyaching about the possibility of ground troops and warning we’re on a slippery slope to getting involved in another land war in the Middle East. The chairman of the joint chiefs, General Dempsey, insists he might recommend it; President Obama insists he won’t do it. But he might — or might not — bomb ISIS in Syria. It all reminds us of the greatest satires Saturday Night Live ever aired, its spoof of the press conference on the eve of the first Gulf War, known as Desert Storm, when Iraq was our enemy.

Phil Hartman played the then-defense secretary, Dick Cheney. Kevin Nelson stood in for an aide, Colonel William Pierson. Dana Harvey, Conan O’Brien, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler and a few others played reporters. Colonel Pierson started off by warning that “there are certain sensitive areas that I’m just not going to get into — particularly, information that might be useful to the enemy.”

“What date are we going to start the ground attack?” asked Reporter #1.

“There are certain sensitive areas which we are just not going to go into,” the colonel snapped.

So the second reporter asked, “Sir, knowing what you know, where would you say our forces are most vulnerable to attack, and how could the Iraqis best exploit those weaknesses?”

“Well, again,” the Colonel replied, “this falls into the area of information that might be useful to the enemy, and I just can’t divulge it right now.”

“Sir!” said reporter #3, “Which method of hiding SCUD missiles is working best for the Iraqis?”

“I just can’t answer that,” the Colonel said.

That’s when Reporter #4 announced he had a two-part question: “Are we planning an amphibious invasion of Kuwait, and if so, where exactly will that be?”

At this point “Defense Secretary” Cheney steps up to explain. “There are two general categories of questions that we are simply not going to be able to address. One, those that would give our enemy advance warning of our actions, and two, those that would identify any points of weakness or vulnerabilities to the Iraqi forces.”

So reporter # 5 asks what are the “passwords that our troops use on the front lines?” When Colonel Pierson refuses to answer, Reporter #6 reopens the question of whether we are planning an amphibious invasion and, if so, where? Reporter #7, played by Tim Meadows, follows up with the classic: “Sir, what would be the one piece of information that would be most dangerous for the Iraqis to know?”

Colonel Pierson offers to take two more questions. So a reporter announces he’s from a newspaper in the enemy capital and says he wants to know where our troops are and whether he can count them. The last question comes from the reporter played by Chris Farley: “Is there anything that you can tell us that would lower the morale of our fighting men?” Colonel Pierson replies that the only thing he can say is “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

* * *

President Obama, in our view, has full authority, under authorizations to use military force issued in 2001 and 2002. But it’s not our purpose here to suggest that we dispense with all questioning and debate about the war. The more this vast hand-writing and airing of differences is on display, though, the more we’ve come around to the view, expressed here earlier, that the strategic move would be for Congress to declare the state of war that already exists between our country and ISIS and resolve that the full resources of the nation will be committed to victory. That is language Congress has traditionally used in declaring that a state of war exists. Then the administration can proceed as it sees fit and brief the Congress in some way that the enemy won’t be listening.