Luck Is Not A Strategy
- From: jose el fontanero <josefsoplar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Luck Is Not A Strategy
Posted By Rich Trzupek On May 10, 2010 @ 12:09 am In FrontPage
There’s no better way to summarize president Obama’s approach to
fighting the war against jihad than this: For the next three years,
we’re betting our safety on the proposition that Islamic thugs and
terrorists will prove to be more incompetent than the Obama
administration. In the aftermath of the Times Square bombing attempt,
is there another way to consider it? How many “isolated incidents”
have to pile up before the president wakes up to the fact that there’s
a pattern, one that just might have something to do with a particular
fundamentalist religious outlook, and that the politically correct
bunker mentality is not going to cut it?
Reluctantly, Attorney General Eric Holder has conceded that it might
be a good idea to adjust, not totally eliminate mind you, the law with
regards to reading a terror suspect their Miranda rights [1], provided
that it can be done within constitutional bounds, of course. Holder’s
tepid foray into the waters of treating enemy combatants like enemies
was prompted by the increasing volume of criticism showered on the
administration for advising Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
[2] and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad that they have the right to
remain silent. Holder assures us that both Abdulmutallab and Shahzad
talked anyway, and perhaps they have, but are we really supposed to
believe that investigators got as much out of them as they would have
had not these enemy combatants been treated to the courtesies of our
legal system?
The idea that we should extend constitutional protections to enemy
combatants, particularly when that enemy is not in uniform, is a
concept that would have perplexed any other American president in
history, with the possible exception of James Earl Carter. The famous
example of FDR summarily executing six Nazi spies [3] found on
American soil during World War II is but one case that illustrates the
way our commanders-in-chief have always dealt with spies and saboteurs
– until now.
But then few past presidents would approve of the “cower behind the
walls” strategy of fighting this war that Obama has adopted. In the
aftermath of Times Square, with three enemy infiltrations onto
American soil in the space of six months, Senate Homeland Security
chair Joe Liebermann observed [4]:
“We were lucky. We did not prevent the attempted attack. It’s hard to
stop them every time, but that has to be our goal. … So I’d say in
terms of prevention, the system failed.”
We were lucky. We will have to continue to be lucky, because when you
choose to go on the defensive, luck is the only thing that keeps a
shell from landing in the wrong place at the wrong time and these
particular shells have two legs and access to a bag of tricks. The
history of warfare shows that in the battle between artillery and
fortifications, artillery always wins, eventually. You build a castle
and somebody is going to invent a trebuchet big enough to batter down
your walls. Build a fort and somebody’s going to come along with a
bigger cannon. The Obama administration is counting on the massive
security apparatus of the United States to create the modern-day
equivalent of the Maginot line around the borders of America, manned
by an army of bureaucrats.
It’s not going to work. It’s never worked. Philosophically, Bush made
it clear that he would target the enemy where he lies, for as long as
it took to win. On the other hand, Obama makes it increasingly obvious
that he longs to disengage from the enemy, thus providing them a host
of targets over here, for as long as “isolated incidents” continue to
occur.
In a tough, cynical world, ruthless leaders can smell weakness and
this president reeks of it. During the 2008 campaign, when
conservatives were critical of Obama’s offer to sit down with our
enemies, a re-occurring example of the kind of hopeful change we could
expect in a post-American world, liberals roundly accused them of war-
mongering. In fact, there’s no mongering involved, there’s just war,
right on our doorstep.
There’s no better example of the scorn with which angry, murderous
jihadists view this president than the words of the man whom Obama
really wanted to sit down with and have a chat and whom has thus
become the sterling symbol of Obama’s global naiveté. Speaking to
thousands of his countrymen with respect to Obama’s feeble attempts to
curb Iran’s nuclear program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said [5]:
“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat
dries and get some experience…. American officials bigger than you,
more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.”
George W. Bush may have been the devil to Ahmadinejad and his ilk, but
one would be foolish indeed not to fear the devil. To the Iranian
president and his partners in waging jihad, Obama is no more than an
ineffectual, unimportant, low-grade, mildly demonic imp, far down on
the west’s satanic organizational chart. For them, Obama is annoying
at times, sure – but not really anything to worry about.
If nothing changes about the way this administration fights the
jihadists, consider the following scenario. In 2012 America elects a
new, tough-on-terror president, in part because everyone recognizes
how ineffective Obama has been as commander in chief. Ahmadinejad,
seeing the writing on the wall – that his nuclear ambitions will go up
in smoke courtesy of the Israeli Defense Force once the new, pro-
Israel guy is sworn in and having put together a couple of nuclear
tipped missiles under the UN’s noses – decides that it’s use it or
lose it time.
Far-fetched? Sure, especially when you know that Israel has the
capability to retaliate in force. But impossible? Mixing religious
fanatics with weak, appeasing leadership in the west makes for a very
dangerous stew. Based on his performance as a war-time leader so far,
it’s going to take a significant tragedy before this president decides
to fight.
.
- Prev by Date: Cap-and-Trade Is Back
- Next by Date: WGFT News Digest - Be Who You Are - GO FASTER
- Previous by thread: Cap-and-Trade Is Back
- Next by thread: WGFT News Digest - Be Who You Are - GO FASTER
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
