| | | |
| | |
|
|
Administration Can't Define Victory
On September 11th, with radical Islamic terrorism growing in strength,
the Obama administration brushed off a very serious question: What does
victory look like against ISIS? Perhaps they should work harder to
define their goals and strategy, rather than hiding behind snarky
excuses.
I said that Obama wouldn't use the word "victory" in his speech
Wednesday when he addressed the growing threat of ISIS. I was correct.
So the media asked Obama's press secretary Josh Earnest the next day:
"What does victory look like here? I mean, you've talked about
destroying ISIL. I honestly don't know what that means. What does it
mean?" Earnest's response: "I didn't bring my Webster's dictionary with me up here."
Seriously? This reporter asked a very legitimate question about a very
serious subject, and yet this is all the administration can come up
with? This is absurd. Earnest did then go on to try and explain how the
president wants to destroy ISIS, but it still remains unclear as to
what exactly "mission accomplish" looks like.
The question is not out-of-line. Accomplishing goals, whether at work
or on the field of battle, requires a measurement of success. This
administration doesn't seem so interested in success or victory so much
as political platitudes and half-measures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't Call It "War"
A profound revelation from the attacks of September 11th was the idea
that the terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with
them. Yet this administration remains reluctant to use the word "war"
to describe its actions against radical Islamic terrorists. The latest
example of this reluctance is Secretary of State John Kerry. He was
asked whether or not he would characterize our plans to "defeat" and
"destroy" ISIS as "war." Kerry's answer
? "I think that's the wrong terminology. What we are doing is
engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation. And it's
going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think
about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so.
The fact is,
it's a major counter-terrorism operation that will have many different
moving parts." So we have a "major counter-terrorism operation." Add
that to the list along with "overseas contingency operations," "
kinetic military action," "man-caused disasters," and "workplace violence." And
we can't forget that ISIS - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - is
neither Islamic nor seeking to be a state. That's according to our
president's speech this week.
Are you noticing a pattern here? Softening the language hasn't done
us any good in achieving peace and stability. In fact, the lack of
clarity has only confused our allies and emboldened our enemies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment