Tag Archives: war on terror

Uncategorized

ISIL strategy laid out … more or less

President Obama has laid it out there.

We’re going to bomb the daylights out of ISIL in Iraq and will start doing so in Syria; we’re going to enlist the aid of regional allies, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to join in the fight; we’re going to arm and equip “moderate rebel forces” in Syria fighting against the dictator Bashar al-Assad.

What I didn’t hear tonight from President Obama was how we’re going to know when we’ve defeated the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-to-launch-airstrikes-in-syria-for-first-time

Ever since the war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, the United States never has set a standard for declaring victory. We cannot ever actually win this war. The president tonight noted that it is impossible for the United States to root out every single individual who terrorizes others. Therefore, I believe, the war against terror will continue probably forever, for as long as people coalesce into groups with the intention of committing terrorist acts.

I heard a commander in chief dedicated to keeping us safe from evil. I saw in his face precisely the same level of determination I’ve seen, say, in President George W. Bush when he announced his intention to go after the “axis of evil.” I heard Barack Obama declare his immense pride in our military personnel.

Can we defeat ISIL with air power alone? Barack Obama believes we can, if we’re smart and if we work diligently with our allies in the region to hunt ISIL fighters down and destroy them.

Although it might be impossible to declare ultimate victory against ISIL or any other terror group that seeks to harm us, it isn’t too much to hope that there might be a day when we can declare the imminent threat to America has been eliminated.

The fight, though, must go on.

 

Uncategorized

ISIL guessing game has commenced

What precisely is President Obama going to say about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?

The guessing game has begun in advance of the president’s speech.

What should he say?

In my view, he needs to announce:

* A regional coalition of nations that will join the United States in its fight against ISIL.

* More intensive air strikes against targets in Iraq.

* Intentions to ask Congress to for authorization to start air strikes in Syria.

* An intensive manhunt for the individual who beheaded the two American journalists.

* Americans must expect a response from the terrorists.

* That this new campaign is expected to last years, just as the war on terror has gone on ever since 9/11.

I’m not one of those who believes we need to put “boots on the ground” back in Iraq or in Syria.

Can we destroy ISIL only with air power? I don’t know.

I do know that we have tremendous firepower that we can bring to bear on military targets. Barack Obama has demonstrated time and again a willingness to use it with extreme effectiveness.

Yes, there have been missteps in recent weeks. The president’s rhetoric has been clumsy at times. He has talked about “destroying” ISIL, then talked about turning ISIL into a “manageable” situation, then gone back to destroying the monstrous organization.

He should stick with the destruction goal.

An anxious nation awaits.

 

International news

Arab states must join the fight agains ISIL

A 10-nation coalition of nations is forming to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

One key element is missing, however, from that “core” group of nations: Arab states.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/world/meast/isis-mideast-nations/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Indeed, among the nations listed in that roster of allies, Turkey — which borders Syria, and is a member of NATO — is the only nation with skin in the game.

President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel now need to enlist Arab states, particularly Sunni Muslim Arab states, to join this fight.

The president is going to lay out his strategy for fighting ISIL in a speech to the nation Wednesday night. He still has time before he issues the “Good evening, my fellow Americans” greeting to bring some key Arab allies into this fight.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Yemen are just six states that need to bring their own intelligence and military assets to bear against ISIL.

Of course, don’t think for a moment that the United States isn’t asking its most dependable Middle East ally — Israel — to lend its own immense intelligence capability to hunt down and destroy ISIL fighters wherever we can find them.

I’m going to await with interest to hear what the president will say Wednesday. One of my hopes will be that we can rally behind the commander in chief and dispense with the second-guessing, carping and partisan posturing that undermines the effort that needs to take place to destroy these monsters.

 

 

International news, political news

What's this? Ted Cruz is right about something?

2 Comments

Imagine my shock and horror when I read something that came out of Sen. Ted Cruz’s mouth that I found agreeable.

The Texas Republican says the United States should revoke the citizenship of any American known to have taken up arms with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Being a fair-minded guy, I want to stipulate that not every loathsome politician is utterly devoid of a good idea once in a while.

Cruz’s notion, as I understand it, is perfectly OK with me.

“There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt … to re-enter our country and carry further attacks on American civilians,” Cruz said.

Amen to that.

I’d like to take that point a step or two further.

First, we should revoke the citizenship of any American known to associate with any terrorist organization. Let’s not limit it to ISIL membership. Al-Qaeda has done terrible things to Americans, as we all know; it, too, has boasted of American-born members, some of whom have been killed by U.S. forces in the on-going war against international terror.

Second, revoking U.S. citizenship of known terrorists removes them from any effort to exempt them from becoming victims of military strikes. I’ve said already that I have no difficulty with American forces killing Americans who’ve taken up arms against their country. Others have questioned the correctness of killing U.S. citizens without giving them “due process.” By my way of thinking, those citizens gave up their rights to due process the moment they suited up in enemy colors.

These so-called Americans have all but renounced their citizenship. Ted Cruz’s idea takes that renunciation a key step further.

Now that I’ve said something in agreement with Ted Cruz, I’ll need some smelling salts.

Still, his idea is on point.

 

International news, political news

Time for a strategy, Mr. President

President Obama made a startling acknowledgment today while talking about a range of issues.

He said the United States does not yet have a strategy to deal with ISIL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/white-house-isil-russia-ukraine-110426.html?hp=t1

Well, there you have it. It’s time to craft a strategy, Mr. President, to combat an organization that does present a serious threat that extends far beyond the region it is seeking to control.

ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is a seriously evil organization capable of doing anything — and I mean anything — to make whatever point it seeks to make.

They’ve beheaded an American journalist, threatened to strike the United States, and vowed to wage all-out war on non-Sunni Muslims, Jews and Christians.

I’m of the view that the president needs to develop a comprehensive strategy immediately and to implement whatever it takes to take ISIL out.

Are we going back into Iraq with ground troops? Obama says no. I hope he means what he says. Count me as one American who’s become war-weary in the extreme. Are we going to send troops into Syria? By all means no. What we have in Syria is a battle between forces that are anathema to our national and international interests. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is hardly better than the ISIL forces seeking to topple him.

ISIL needs to be the target, Mr. President.

I appreciated today hearing you acknowledge the lack of a strategy. Now, though, is time to assemble that national security team to develop one. Now.

 

International news, national news, political news

An emphatic 'no!' on paying ransom

Why in the world are we even debating this issue of paying ransom for hostages held by terror groups?

Yet we are at some level.

http://video.kacvtv.org/video/2365314751/

The policy long has been that the U.S. government doesn’t pay ransom. It instead by seeking to egotiate with the terrorists to persuade them it is in their best interest to let their captives go. If that tactic fails, then the government responds with military force or it seeks to rescue the captives.

The issue has come to light with the tragic murder by ISIS terrorists of journalist James Foley and the release by another terror group of Peter Theo Curtis. We learned shortly after Foley’s gruesome death that U.S. forces failed in a rescue attempt.

I don’t have a particular problem with allowing the families and friends of these captives seeking to pony up money to secure their release, even though such action usually does interfere with official negotiations under way to accomplish the same thing.

The very idea, though, of the government paying ransom is repugnant on its face. It sets a monetary value on someone’s life that in effect cheapens it.

Terror organizations must not be legitimized by, in effect, rewarding them for the terrible acts they commit. They need to be hunted down and arrested — or killed.

 

International news, national news

U.S.-born ISIS fighter is dead

All the hand-wringing over the use of drones to target terrorists who might be American citizens makes me angry.

U.S. airpower struck at a U.S. citizen who had been working with al-Qaeda in Yemen. Our ordnance killed him and civil libertarians and others lamented the lack of “due process” given to the young man before the missile blew him away.

Too bad for that.

Now comes word that another young American, someone named Douglas McCain, was killed in a battle among terror groups in Syria. McCain had been recruited by ISIS, which is fighting governments in Syria and Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Will there more hand-wringing over this one? Probably not, given that he died at the hands of another extremist group. Suppose, though, he’d been killed by U.S. forces. Suppose further that those forces knew that an American was shooting back at him and that he intended to kill whoever he could hit.

Would we have legal and moral standing to kill someone who had renounced his country and taken up arms with the enemy?

Absolutely.

I’m as progressive as anyone on many issues. When it comes, however, to “protecting the rights” of Americans who turn on their country, all bets are off.

My curiosity goes only so far as to wonder what drives Americans to join forces with enemy combatants.

I don’t know the first thing about Douglas McCain and what lured him into the embrace of a hideous terrorist organization. To be honest, I don’t particularly care to know.

What’s left to ponder only is that someone who had declared himself to be an enemy of the country of his birth is now dead.

Whether he died at the hands of other bad guys or at the hands of our soldiers wouldn’t matter to me one little bit.

 

Uncategorized

'Terror is alive'

Bob Schieffer is one wise Texan whose wisdom needs to be heard inside the White House.

The link attached here is of a commentary Schieffer made on the CBS News talk show he hosts each Sunday, “Face the Nation.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/17/schieffer_i_dont_care_how_many_times_you_say_bin_laden_is_dead_terrorism_is_alive.html

He took issue with his fellow pundits’ assertion that Hillary Rodham Clinton stumbled when she criticized President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. “Of course she did,” Schieffer noted.

Schieffer took note of the implied contention within the White House that the May 2011 commando mission that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was sufficient somehow to defeat terrorism. It surely wasn’t.

Many of us noted that although bin Laden’s death was a big victory in the war against terror, other terrorists would emerge to take his place.

They have done exactly that.

Schieffer says the United States needs a comprehensive strategy to continue the fight for as long as it takes in order to protect Americans from those who vow to do us harm.

The veteran journalist knows of which he speaks.

Uncategorized

Memo validates drone strike on American

Maybe there’s something wrong with me … but I doubt it.

I might be one of few Americans who can justify a drone strike that killed an American citizen who happened to be an al-Qaeda terrorist.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-memo-justifies-drone-hit-american-citizen-al-awlaki-n138431

The U.S. Justice Department has released a declassified version of a memo that validates the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born terrorist. He had been plotting against the United States of America. He was a traitor to his country. His death in the Yemen drone attack, which occurred in September 2011, has become a cause for civil libertarians who contend that the United States should not target an American citizen in its war against international terror.

Al-Awlaki was a very bad man. He deserved to die on the battlefield. He had taken up arms against the United States. He was an enemy combatant. My understanding of war is that enemy combatants become targets of the forces that oppose them.

“We believe DoD’s contemplated action against al-Aulaqi would comply with international law, including the laws of war applicable to this armed conflict and would fall within Congress’ authorization to use ‘necessary and appropriate force’ against al-Qaida,” the memo said.

The memo concludes, saying that al-Awlaki was “engaged in continual planning and direction of attacks upon U.S. persons from one of the enemy’s overseas basis of operations, the U.S. government does not know precisely when such attacks will occur, and a capture operation would be infeasible.”

“There are few questions more important than the question of when the government has the authority to kill its own citizens,” according to deputy ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer.

My own feeling is that when one of those citizens takes up arms on the field of battle against his country, then he has answered the question himself. He becomes a target.

Uncategorized

Time to end the Afghan War

President Barack Obama said it succinctly today: It is harder to end a war than to start one.

With that, the nation’s longest war now appears to be drawing to a close.

I’m glad about that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obama-afghanistan-troops-stay-9800-stay-2014-west-point-107115.html?hp=l2

The president’s critics were quick — as they have been all along — to blast him for setting a well-chronicled timetable for withdrawal. The United States, Obama said, will leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan in an “advisory” capacity by the end of this year; we’ll draw down to that level from the current level of 30,000-plus.

Our combat role will end. Afghans will be responsible for their own country’s security. Our war effort will be over.

The critics say the timetable gives the Taliban time to plan, strategize and hit back hard at the Afghan government that seeks to cement its control.

That’s an interesting view, to which I have a single-word response: Vietnam.

President Nixon did not set a timetable for the “Vietnamization” effort he began shortly after taking office in 1969. But by the time he left office in August 1974, our combat role had diminished to near zero. Fewer than nine months later, in April 1975, the North Vietnamese communists had mustered enough firepower to overrun South Vietnam.

My point is this: With our without a timetable, the other side is going to keep fighting. The task, then, is to prepare our allies in power to defend themselves adequately against an enemy that’s been degraded significantly over the course of the past dozen years.

As the president noted, al-Qaida isn’t extinct. Its leadership has been decimated, Osama bin Laden has been eliminated, its organization has been scattered. Is it still operational? To a large degree, yes. Our forces, though, continue to hunt down and kill bad guys when and where we find them. That effort will — and should — continue.

It’s time to end this war.