There has been just one domestic attack plot from a foreign fighter who returned from the Middle East, but at least seven cases in which the US filed charges against Americans who were plotting attacks and had not been radicalized overseas.
Advertisement
“Why are there ISIS HQs, training camps & ammo depots in Raqqa for France to bomb?” The three terrorist acts killed 396 people, and Brookings Institution’s Will McCants says it marks a major shift in the terrorist group’s strategy. But obviously this attack tells a different story.
The takeaway for voters is that many of their candidates for president aren’t demonstrating readiness for the kinds of decisions that confront Obama now: Should the USA devote more military resources or merely sound more menacing but not change strategy? He proposes that the United States lead a coalition of up to 100,000 troops to eliminate the Islamic State and pacify Syria.
What would be the reason for that shift?
Pursuing “limited” military means “tends to be the worst of the military options, because where it leads us is mission creep”. The Russians intervened in Syria, they faced a terrorist attack in the Sinai. This has been a 1400-year battle and won’t end overnight but unless the battle is enjoined and unless the true nature of the enemy is understood then there will be many more of these brutal and deadly attacks.
US war planners – bought-and-paid-for military opportunists one and all – see the ISIS attacks in Paris as one big European crisis which should not be allowed to go to waste. France has stepped up its attacks.
There are better solutions apart from endless war, although western leaders refuse to consider them if they include a made-in-Russia stamp of approval.
No, I don’t think it’s that hard of a group to fight. Can she placate the Democrats’ anti-war base with “cannot be an American fight”, separate herself from the disintegrating situation on Obama’s watch and convince security-minded general election voters that she’ll forcefully protect their country from terrorists? And I think it’s entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. He even audibly sighed after the third question from a reporter asking why he appears to have underestimated the enemy. “And so I can’t afford (this is where he paused momentarily, as if he realized he was thinking out loud – about nothing more than his legacy not the national security) to play a few of the political games that others may”.
Walmart and McDonald’s write to Congress to ask for more money to fight antibiotic resistance. Even al-Qaeda, before 2001, was able to become al-Qaeda because it had access to all that territory in Afghanistan.
So for the Obama administration and its allies, is the strategy being employed now a winning strategy? That is, largely attacking ISIS from the air without committing ground troops, and instead working through the rebel groups on the ground in Syria?
The Obama administration’s ongoing ineptitude in formulating and executing an effective counterterrorism policy has created the vacuum we face today. In the wake of the tragedy, Obama spent much of his time scoring points against Republicans. “You don’t want to replace one novice with another”.
So I think what Secretary [of State John] Kerry is doing in Vienna is absolutely right.
Finally, America, often times one can get Real Truth by watching the Late Night Show with Steven Colbert than from biased and/or ignorant news experts and analysts.
Particularly irritating to lawmakers is the contrast between Obama’s passive approach, which relies heavily on US allies in the region taking the initiative, and the quick French response to the attacks. The terrorism threat is growing more global at an alarming rate. So what is the next step there? If that is what geographic containment looks like, I’d hate to see expansion. There is no straight shot for either ISIS or for moderate Syrian opposition to capture Damascus now. He is too weak and too marginalized and too hated for his crimes to be able to conquer all of Syria and hold it.
Advertisement
Clearly our nation has ample military strength to crush the murderous terrorists in Iraq and Syria.
