Though not yet officially confirmed the news is breaking that American journalist Steven Sotloff has been beheaded by his ISIS captors. This morning I watched in disgust as State Department spokeshole, Jen Psaki gave her customary tap dance and double talk as she parried reporters' questions as to why we are taking no military action against ISIS in Syria, where both beheadings presumably took place.
We also now hear that contrary to President Obama's earlier statement about ISIS being the "JV team wearing Kobe Bryant Laker jerseys", he has received detailed briefings on the rise of this group of 7th century barbarians for the past year.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Steven and his family, but ISIS has promised to bring their jihad to the US. They have hundreds of fighters in Syria and Iraq who are carrying US and Western passports. In short, they must be dealt with. For starters, this is not something that must be referred to our federal courts and the whims of Eric Holder. GITMO must remain open and be prepared to receive lots of new inmates. Trials should be by military tribunals.
We also need to take some sort of legal action to start revoking the naturalization of those who have gone to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Some laws probably need to be changed, but we need to follow Britain's lead on this.
As much as I hate to say it, pin-point air strikes and drone attacks are not going to be enough. We need to give the Kurds whatever they need to carry the fight to ISIS. NATO should also be fully involved. When all is said and done, if it takes US ground troops to wipe this scum from the earth, then so be it. Obama can deny that we are at war with ISIS all he wants (He already has). The fact is that ISIS is at war with us.
It is 1939. The time has come for the world to take action. ISIS must be dealt with as were the Nazis.
Nothing would feed ISIS like the President of the United States on world-wide television taking them seriously as the greatest menace the U.S. has ever encountered. They are mean, rabid, dangerous, and need to be exterminated, but they are small fry for all that.
ReplyDeleteGary finally, in his last paragraph, got around to saying what he would do, rather than crying "My God, why doesn't somebody do something." Most of what he offers is well within the line of policies our president is pursuing or exploring, EXCEPT:
Ground troops. You deliver a solid majority of Americans ready and willing to support the introduction of U.S. ground troops, and I'm sure congress and the president will spring into action.
But remember, our greatest success in Afghanistan, we didn't supply the ground troops. We provided special ops teams, tactical air cover, and ammunition. The ground troops who knew the country, the Northern Alliance, did the rest. We shouldn't have brought anyone to Guantanamo, we shouldn't have engineered a Loya Jirga, we should have left everything in the hands of the Northern Alliance. It would have been messy, bloody and barbaric, but hey, its their country. They know the ground rules. We would have been well out of it.
Supplying the Pesh Mergha, bombing ISIS, even when the nearest ground troops are Shia militia, and trying to facilitate a half-way viable government in Bagdhad that can talk to Iraq's Sunni tribes is about what we're able to do. And with that, ISIS may well prove to be a flash in the pan.
ReplyDeleteLet me see here. As a frinstance and as only one example of many, we have what I believe must be considered a "solid majority" of Americans (certainly somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters) who most definitely favor securing the Mexican border, and have done so for some time.
Except for political expediency and votes (pandering, as it were), I am therefore at a loss to comprehend why Obama and the Democratically-led Senate (the Republican House is surely ready) have not already sprung into action and jumped on this with all four feet. Oh well.
Simple elwood... it is much easier for politicians to refrain from doing something the public wants, than to mobilize the public to ACT on something the public opposes.
ReplyDeleteI mean... a majority of Americans voted for Democrats for congress... so why isn't there a majority of Democrats in congress?
I guess the best reason I can think of is that congressional elections are either by district or statewide, not nationally. While enough people may have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in parts of the country such that the total national number of Democratic votes cast is greater than that for Republican votes, the system does not work as you have described it. As a result, the House is majority Republican and the Senate majority Democratic.
ReplyDeleteAnd we cannot even count on the person who receives the majority of votes actually being elected. Ask Al Gore, among others.
And I have never really understood what sometimes goes on in elections. In my state, for some time now the exact same voting population has elected a Senator from each major party. In addition, our governor is a Democrat while our Lieutenant Governor is a Republican. Go figure.
have never really understood what sometimes goes on in elections.
ReplyDeleteThat is the understatement of the year.
And yes, voters do have a habit of doing things pundits, politicians, and true believers cannot fathom. In 2004, the Republicans thought Senator Feingold was "definitely vulnerable" because of his vote against the USA Patriot Act. That year, six percent of the voters split their ticket between George W. Bush and Russ Feingold. Six years later, everyone agreed the Patriot Act was a grave threat to American liberty, and Feingold was defeated by a bland nebbish with no political experience. Two years after electing Republican Ron Johnson, six months after retaining Governor Scott Walker, a majority of Wisconsin voters elected Tammy Baldwin to the senate.
But elwood, you have answered your own question. Our political process is not precisely set up to promptly do whatever "the people" vote for. Sometimes there is good reason for that, sometimes not. But its real.