By now, the whole country understands president Obama's plan for dealing with ISIS: Obama is going to say that his failed strategy is working and just go one as before. New threats like the infiltration of possible terrorists among Syrian refugees will be ignored in the service of political correctness. Anyone who opposes Obama will be labeled either crazy or a bigot.
Obama's course of action is guaranteed to fail. It is just a matter of time before there is a major ISIS attack here in the USA. We can all tell Obama at that point, "we told you so", but that is of no comfort. There will be dead Americans whose lives might have been saved by a more thoughtful or robust response from the president. No doubt at that time Obama will trot out his ploy of telling the country that he is "mad as hell" about what happened and he will promise a full investigation into just how it came to pass.
So what are the alternatives? Is there something America could do now to lower the threat from ISIS? The answer is clearly yes, and it is not really that difficult to come up with those alternatives. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Let's get a NATO force to attack ISIS from bases in Turkey. If each member state of NATO contributed at least 1000 soldiers (for the smaller countries) or 5000 soldiers (for the bigger countries), there could be an army of 70,000 soldiers quickly assembled in southern Turkey. With the support of air power from the member states, such a force could easily take Raqqa and the ISIS territory in Syria in a matter of weeks. That force could also move on into Iraq quickly and retake the rest of the ISIS "caliphate". There would be casualties, but there would also be an end to the safe haven from which ISIS plans its terror attacks.
2. If we are not going to use ground forces, then let's set up a safe zone in northern Syria where refugees could go to get away from ISIS. We could arm the Kurdish forces already in that area and declare a no-fly zone to keep both the Assad and Russian planes out. We could also step up our use of air power to attack any attempt by ISIS to enter the safe zone. If there were a safe place in Syria, then those refugees fleeing the country would be able to stay in Syria.
3. Let's change the rules of engagement in the battle against ISIS. American refusal to drop bombs if there is any risk of civilian casualties may make the people in the White House happy, but it doesn't win us friends in Syria or Iraq. Those people still see US planes dropping bombs. There are always collateral damage and civilian casualties in war. There is no way to stop it. All the present policy does is to give ISIS protection because the terrorists know that so long as they are in civilian areas, they are safe from bombing.
4. Let's pause the entrance of Syrian refugees into the USA until there is an adequate method in place for making sure that those allowed to enter the country are not terrorists.
America has a choice between national security on the one hand and liberal ideology and political correctness on the other hand. We should opt for safety and security.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton just gave a speech this morning in which even she began to embrace a few of the ideas expressed above. It was still a typical Hillary speech in which she glossed over any explanation of how she ran a foreign policy that got us to this place. Nevertheless, it is clear that Clinton realizes that the Obama policy cannot be allowed to continue.
Obama's course of action is guaranteed to fail. It is just a matter of time before there is a major ISIS attack here in the USA. We can all tell Obama at that point, "we told you so", but that is of no comfort. There will be dead Americans whose lives might have been saved by a more thoughtful or robust response from the president. No doubt at that time Obama will trot out his ploy of telling the country that he is "mad as hell" about what happened and he will promise a full investigation into just how it came to pass.
So what are the alternatives? Is there something America could do now to lower the threat from ISIS? The answer is clearly yes, and it is not really that difficult to come up with those alternatives. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Let's get a NATO force to attack ISIS from bases in Turkey. If each member state of NATO contributed at least 1000 soldiers (for the smaller countries) or 5000 soldiers (for the bigger countries), there could be an army of 70,000 soldiers quickly assembled in southern Turkey. With the support of air power from the member states, such a force could easily take Raqqa and the ISIS territory in Syria in a matter of weeks. That force could also move on into Iraq quickly and retake the rest of the ISIS "caliphate". There would be casualties, but there would also be an end to the safe haven from which ISIS plans its terror attacks.
2. If we are not going to use ground forces, then let's set up a safe zone in northern Syria where refugees could go to get away from ISIS. We could arm the Kurdish forces already in that area and declare a no-fly zone to keep both the Assad and Russian planes out. We could also step up our use of air power to attack any attempt by ISIS to enter the safe zone. If there were a safe place in Syria, then those refugees fleeing the country would be able to stay in Syria.
3. Let's change the rules of engagement in the battle against ISIS. American refusal to drop bombs if there is any risk of civilian casualties may make the people in the White House happy, but it doesn't win us friends in Syria or Iraq. Those people still see US planes dropping bombs. There are always collateral damage and civilian casualties in war. There is no way to stop it. All the present policy does is to give ISIS protection because the terrorists know that so long as they are in civilian areas, they are safe from bombing.
4. Let's pause the entrance of Syrian refugees into the USA until there is an adequate method in place for making sure that those allowed to enter the country are not terrorists.
America has a choice between national security on the one hand and liberal ideology and political correctness on the other hand. We should opt for safety and security.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton just gave a speech this morning in which even she began to embrace a few of the ideas expressed above. It was still a typical Hillary speech in which she glossed over any explanation of how she ran a foreign policy that got us to this place. Nevertheless, it is clear that Clinton realizes that the Obama policy cannot be allowed to continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment