This is King Abdullah of Jordan. Look at his face. He is royally pissed off about ISIS' misconduct, and he's going to do something about it. He swears to use all the assets of his little country to put the hurt on these slobbering barbarians.
Based solely on the look on his face, I'd wager he is going to do what he says. Can we vote for him for president? That's the look I want to see on the face of my president when some pack of howling animals threatens our people or allies. I want to know those wipes are going to rue the day they hurt one of ours - if any survive to do any rueing.
Meanwhile, on this side of the world, our own leader can't seem to even call evil out for what it is.
From S.E. Cupp, at the New York Daily News, "Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name:
"To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.
He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.
His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."
Surreal indeed..."
ISIS is no responsibility of the US government or the American tax payer. Close the border and there is no threat. Killing one ISIS member overseas is not worth one dime of American tax money.
ReplyDeleteYour point is valid, but keep in mind that the post is about leadership.
DeleteOn the issue you bring up, however, it's all about the question of when you really need to get involved, and that's been an issue from the founding of our country, when the leaders of the time warned against foreign entanglements. In both world wars, the same question you bring up was hot on the minds of policy makers, and generally the country erred on the side of staying out of the conflicts of others. Yet, in the end, those conflicts came to us, and we had to act.
So the real question is when should we act to stop a threat, especially one where we can accurately predict that the fight will come to us eventually.
I certainly don't know, and I rather agree more with telling the locals here to take care of their own business, like Abdullah is doing now. I do think that we should help the locals, like the Kurds and Jordanians with intelligence and supplies, and commit more only if they still can't deal with the issue. Your milage may vary, but without control over our borders, these ISIS people have pledged to bring their violence to us here, and in that situation I approve of significant help to the locals. Committing troops? Only if absolutely needed.
"In peace there is nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility: but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of a tiger, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood ...". Henry V, act 3, scene 1 by William Shakespeare.
ReplyDelete