Tag Archives: war on terror

International news

Biker gangs getting into the fight

My first reaction to this story wasn’t well thought out.

Dutch officials say that biker gang members from The Netherlands who are fighting Islamic State terrorists in Syria or Iraq aren’t breaking any Dutch laws, the story goes. “Yes!” I thought. A friend of mine — himself an avid motorcycle enthusiast — believes that perhaps American biker gangs ought to join the fight “as they don’t have anything to lose, either.”

http://news.yahoo.com/netherlands-says-ok-biker-gangs-fight-islamic-state-155136559.html

I’m not so sure this is a good idea, no matter who’s doing the fighting.

It’s the bad guys who worry me and what they are demonstrably capable of doing to those who oppose them.

I know nothing about Dutch law and what that country’s constitution allows. If the Dutch say the bikers — presumably they’re some serious bad a**** — aren’t running afoul of their country’s laws, then they would be participating at their own extreme risk.

If they get caught, though, they ought to ponder what is likely to happen to them in front of the whole, wide world. So should their countrymen.

Should some Americans join them? Umm, no. I have zero appetite for watching a potentially horrifying spectacle play out if it involves an American “mercenary” who’s joined the fight against ISIL.

International news

Security issue crosses a new border

Well, it seems that border security isn’t just an American problem.

Vice President Biden said recently that Turkey has allowed fighters to cross into Syria to join the Islamic State in its fight against the world. His statement drew a sharp rebuke from Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has demanded an apology from the vice president.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/219780-turkish-president-demands-apology-from-biden

Erdogan’s take? He said, according to The Hill: “‘Foreign fighters have never entered Syria from our country. They may come to our country as tourists and cross into Syria, but no one can say that they cross in with their arms,’ Erdogan continued, saying the country had prevented 6,000 suspected jihadist members from entering the country and deported another 1,000.”

This sounds vaguely familiar.

There might be a serious semantic problem that needs to be clarified.

Critics of the Obama administration keep harping on the “porous” southern border with Mexico, yet ignore that U.S. border agents are rounding up illegal immigrants daily and have been returning them to their home countries in record numbers. Is the border really “porous” if we’re catching people coming here illegally? Just asking.

Now we hear about border security issues in one of the most dangerous places on Earth. Syria years ago erupted into civil conflict. It’s been bloody and ruthless. Neighboring nations ought to be locking down their own borders with Syria, particularly with news of the thousands of foreign fighters joining the hideous forces waging battle against the tyrannical regime of Bashar al-Assad.

So, what did the vice president say? He criticized Turkey and Arab nations for supporting Sunni militant groups that turned out to comprise fighters from around the world.

I’ll give the vice president the benefit of the doubt on this one. He may have been asserting that Turkey needs to do a better job of securing its borders with a nation at war with itself. These conflicts have ways of spilling over into neighboring nations.

So, if the Turks are our allies, then they need to demonstrate their commitment to joining the fight by locking down their border and ensuring the foreign fighters don’t enter the Syrian battlefield from Turkey.

Uncategorized

U.S. not alone in this fight

Barack Obama wants it known that the United States is not fighting the Islamic State one-on-one, nation vs. cult.

The president of the United States said on “60 Minutes” that the country he leads is just a leader in the fight that comprises an international coalition of nations battling a despicable terrorist organization.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/barack-obama-isil-111395.html?hp=l2

I get that.

The harder sell will be to Americans who are likely to perceive that since we’re “leading” the air strikes against ISIL in Syria and Iraq that it, indeed, is our fight to win.

I’m willing to welcome the rest of the world to join us in this war against this clearly defined evil force.

There must be no illusions about how long this conflict will persist. As we’ve learned so painfully, the death of one key terrorist leader such as Osama bin Laden does not by itself necessarily weaken an organization he would lead. Al-Qaeda received a serious blow to its command and control when the SEAL and CIA commando team smoked bin Laden in May 2011. Others have surfaced to take his place.

As the world has learned, ISIL has emerged as a serious world threat.

Thus, the world must fight this menace. That is what the president seeks to do, build a worldwide coalition of nations willing and able to fight ISIL to the death.

It is not our battle to wage on our own.

International news, national news, political news

Iraqi slope getting slippery

That slope that leads into Iraq is getting more slippery all the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said it is “possible” that American ground troops will be brought back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-scrutinizes-obama-military-strategy-070816643–politics.html

I believe this is the kind of thing the commander in chief, President Obama, said won’t happen.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen. Dempsey said in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Will the president heed the advice of his top military adviser? Therein lies the stickiest of wickets possible for the president.

His critics say the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State with just air power. They also suggest that our coalition-building, which worked pretty well in advance of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is insufficient as well.

So, does the president act on his instincts and stay the course, which means “no boots on the ground” in Iraq? Or does he follow the advice of a team of four-star military brass — all of whom have substantial combat experience — and send “advisers” in with Iraqi troops to root out ISIL terrorists?

Can you say “conundrum”?

It’s my fervent hope that whatever “boots” hit the ground in Iraq remain on the feet of advisers and not on those of infantry or other troops trained in the combat arms.

Meanwhile, keep dropping bombs on the bad guys.

International news, national news, political news

Put lawsuit on hold, Mr. Speaker

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner:

You don’t know me, nor do you likely care what I have to say about how you do your job. That is the business of the voters in your Ohio congressional district. Still, I’m going to offer you some unsolicited advice from out here in Flyover Country.

That lawsuit you plan to file against the president of the United States over his alleged misuse of executive authority? Put on the farthest back burner you can find.

You know this already, Mr. Speaker, but the country is going to war — again. The enemy this time is the Islamic State. They’ve beheaded two American journalists and a British aid worker. They mean business. They’re the nastiest of the nasty elements of society.

President Obama is trying mightily to craft an international coalition of nations — including Sunni Arab states in the Middle East — to join the United States in this fight to destroy ISIL. You, sir, should join the fight as well.

The lawsuit you said you want to file is a mere distraction at a time of national crisis. It smacks of partisan petulance. A lot of us out here in the heartland know what gives with the suit. You want to fire up the Republican Party base in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. You want your party to take control of the Senate. That likely will happen no matter what you do regarding that silly lawsuit. I can grasp your anger over the president’s use of executive authority to tinker with the Affordable Care Act. Given the international stakes, though, it all seems so damn petty.

To file suit now would serve as the Mother of All Distractions. It would take the president’s eyes off the ball he needs to watch, which is the one involving the protection of Americans. That’s his No. 1 duty as president and commander in chief. You agree with that, right?

As for your own job as speaker of the House, you’ve got to rally the entire body — not just Republicans — to some form of unity behind the president as he undertakes the task of fighting this despicable enemy.

Picking a court fight now, with the nation’s attention turning to ISIL, disserves the country you say you love.

I believe you do love America, Mr. Speaker. So do I.

So, from one patriotic American to another: Let go of that goofy lawsuit idea.

International news, political news

Killing top terrorists 'won't work'

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal knows a thing or two about hunting down and killing terrorists.

So, when he says that killing the top dogs in the terrorist chain of command won’t eradicate the organization, he deserves the nation’s ear.

http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=f189696c-1d54-4eb9-8637-9c422da93289

McChrystal noted — as many others have acknowledged — that killing Osama bin Laden in May 2011 didn’t eliminate al-Qaeda. Others stepped up to replace him. Now some are saying that the terror group is stronger than before.

The general’s comments come in the wake of President Obama declaring war, in effect, against the Islamic State. The plan now is to go after ISIL’s top leadership, eliminate it, decimate the organization and then perhaps be able to declare some form of victory in this war against terror.

McChrystal is dubious of that strategy, as he said to CNN’s Erin Burnett.

I’ve sought to make the point on this blog that the anti-terror campaign is unlike any we’ve ever fought as a nation. There is no clearly defined enemy operating out of foreign capitals, funded openly by hostile governments. They operate in the shadows, seeking to keep their identity secret for as long as possible.

Yes, we know who ISIL’s leaders are, as we know the names of those who lead al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram or any other terrorist organization. If we kill every leader of every group, does that send the minions into hiding, dispirited? No. I enrages them and they find new leaders to step up.

The fight is worth waging and we must fight them with extreme prejudice.

However, as Gen. McChrystal has said correctly, killing the bad guys’ leaders isn’t enough.

International news, national news, political news

OK, it's official: We're at war

Is it war or is it a counter-terrorism campaign?

I’d thought out loud in an earlier blog post that the terminology didn’t matter. We’re going after the Islamic State with heavy weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s been to war … in Vietnam — was reluctant to use that term. Now the commander in chief, Barack Obama, says we’re “at war” with ISIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

Let’s be mindful, though, of what this “war” actually means, or doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to take over a foreign capital, run up the Stars and Stripes and declare victory. Nor does it mean we’re going to receive surrender papers from a foreign government aboard some warship. It won’t result in our rebuilding (I hope) some nation that we’ve blown to smithereens trying to root out and kill terrorists.

What the “war” means is that we’re going to be in this fight for perhaps well past the foreseeable future. I suspect we’ll still be fighting this “war” when Barack Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. He’ll hand the battle plans over to his successor, wish that person good luck and then the new commander in chief will be left with trying to kill all the ISIL fighters our military can find.

The war against terrorism is something we launched after 9/11. Everyone in America knew the war wouldn’t have an end date. Heck, there really wasn’t an strategy to conclude the war when President Bush declared it after the terrorists killed thousands of Americans on that terrible Tuesday morning 13 years ago.

I still don’t give a damn what we call this conflict. If it’s war, then we’re going to have to redefine how we know when it’s over.

First, though, we’ll likely have to redefine when it ends. Good luck with that.

Uncategorized

'Silver lining' showing up in Islamic State fight

President Obama sees a potential “silver lining” in the fight to eradicate the Islamic State.

It lies in capitals of Arab states that are joining the fight with the United States of America.

Obama sees ‘silver lining’ in ISIS fight

It’s time for those nations to declare war — or take hostile action of some sort — against terrorists who are perverting Islam into something that doesn’t resemble one of the world’s great religions.

The president spoke to a group of Democratic donors at a fundraiser and said, “We’re going to be able to build the kind of coalition that allows us to lead but also isn’t entirely dependent on what we do.”

Therein lies the potential silver lining.

For far too long these Islamic extremists have been declaring some kind of “holy war” against the “infidels” of the world. They have embarked on a campaign of terror in the name of Islam. Meanwhile, Sunni Arab states have been relatively quiet. They haven’t joined the fight in an active sense.

Today, just a few days after Obama announced his administration’s strategy to fight ISIL, a coalition is beginning to form and it is including Middle East nations with actual skin in this so-called game.

Yes, the United States can lead the coalition, but it cannot carry this fight all alone.

Let’s hope, therefore, that this coalition of Muslim nations not only holds up, but strengthens in its resolve to destroy terrorist groups that are harming them as much as they seek to harm The Great Satan.

International news, national news, political news

War or counter-terrorism effort?

We’re beginning now to parse the meaning of the word “war” and whether our effort to destroy the Islamic State means we’ve entered yet another armed conflict.

Secretary of State John Kerry disputed that terminology, declaring that the United States is embarking on a comprehensive “counter-terrorism” campaign to eradicate the hideous terrorists.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit to me what we call it.

All of this harkens back to when we declared “war” on international terrorism. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 attacks by tossing out the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing so, he said the nation would be waging a multi-front war against terrorists, hunting them down wherever they lurked or hid.

Indeed, the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York served — if you’ll pardon the use of this term — the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to this country. We’ve known about terrorists. We’ve understood intellectually they can do us harm. However, the 9/11 attacks were so brilliantly conceived and executed — and it pains me terribly to say it that way — that we were forced to ratchet up our vigilance to unprecedented levels.

So the war goes on.

Our campaign now to eradicate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can be called a war, or it can be called a counter-terrorism offensive.

I don’t care what they call it. The strategy just announced by President Obama is a continuation of what we’ve been doing ever since the terrorists committed their heinous act 13 years ago.

It’s a new kind of conflict with a new kind of enemy. I’m still hoping to learn how in the world we’ll ever be able to declare victory.

Uncategorized

Bad guys at the gate? Hardly

The Washington Times, a leading conservative-leaning newspaper, splashed a large headline Wednesday proclaiming that Islamic State terrorists are “planning to infiltrate” our southern border.

There you have it. Panic has set in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/10/us-confirms-islamic-state-planning-infiltration-bo/

Social media is starting to churn up some dire stories about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant getting ready to invade the United States. The Washington Times story suggests, if you parse the language with just a bit of care, that ISIL is merely “making plans” to do some bad things to us.

Does that mean ISIL is at the gate? Does it mean an attack is imminent? Does it mean ISIL is all set to start exploding bombs, capturing Americans and doing terrible things to their captives?

It means nothing of the kind.

All the story really means is that ISIL wants to do all those things. Well, duh? Who doesn’t know that already?

We should do well to take a deep breath and place just a bit of trust in the national security professionals’ ability to do the job for which they are highly trained.

I’m less willing at this point to listen to politicians looking to get their names in the news by making dire assertions that to date cannot be proven.

Do we dismiss the suggestions that ISIL is “planning” to attack the United States of America? Of course not.

We shouldn’t interpret such expressions of intent as anything more than that. I’m going to continue to place my trust on the men and women who are trained to keep us safe. I’ll start to worry when they sound the alarm.