“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.”-Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
Sun Tzu is credited with writing those words 2,500 years ago, but they could have been written as a warning to Western leaders as they refuse to acknowledge what we are fighting against, radical Islam. And allow me to suggest that it is this silly game of political correctness that is allowing the cancer of radical Islam to metastasize and spread terrorism throughout the world.
Saturday evening’s Democratic Party debate displayed the full range of liberal thought on the war against Islamic terrorism; all three candidates refused to use the “R” word—radical Islam.
This silly game of political correctness that is allowing the cancer of radical Islam to metastasize and spread terrorism throughout the world.
Along with the dangers of actual terrorist attacks we in the west and especially in the United States face a radical political correctness which kills, not by guns or bombs but by ignoring the enemy leaving us nakedly vulnerable for their violent attacks. It is this tepid response to terrorism since has done more to recruit people to radical Islam than any radical Imam’s Friday sermon.
The only way to defeat radical Islam is to identify them as our enemy and then crush them militarily. Anything short of that allows groups like ISIS to recruit supporters by claiming victory over the west.
A leader should never send people into battle without enough tools to win, but that is what our President is doing with his half hearted attempt to defeat the ISIS threat. Sending 50 of our special ops heroes over to Syria to fight ISIS does little more than put those special forces in danger. If we want to prevent more attacks like what happened in Paris or prevent our planes from being blown out of the sky like the Russian plane over the Sinai, the United States needs to send a force large enough to crush and destroy ISIS and any other radical Islamist movement.
We need to have the will to win. The U.S. has to change the rules of engagement allowing our people to fight. And sadly there are going to be civilian casualties. ISIS and other Islamic terror groups embed themselves among the civilian population. But we must understand that the most humane way to conduct this war on terror is to fight it with a large force, with extreme power and end it as soon as possible. Yes, we need to avoid civilian casualties as much as humanly possible, but at the same time we need to remove the handcuffs from our military leaders and allow them to win this war.
Our terrorist radical Islamic adversaries are joyfully celebrating that Obama, the liberal/ progressives, and the libertarians like Rand Paul voluntarily throw away America’s military strength by denying and handcuffing it, allowing the Islamic terrorists attack our western allies and eventually to attack on the American homeland.
Talk is nice but this is not a battle that can be won by negotiation, negotiation can happen after we have won militarily. Does anybody really believe that Anwar Sadat would have gone to Jerusalem to make peace if Egypt hadn’t lost wars in 1956, 1967, and 1973?
For those who will ask, “why do we always have to be the world’s policemen?” The answer is that this is our fight! If we allow ISIS and other Islamist groups to expand we will most assuredly be mourning the dead in our major U.S. cities the same way Parisians are mourning their dead today.
Another important lesson from Paris is that we need to seal our borders. Sealing our borders is not just a matter of keeping out illegal immigrants, more concerning is we need to keep out radical Islamists. Yes, folks, as easily as it is for a Mexican to cross the boarder into the southern U.S., it is just as easy for a radical Islamist to cross. It’s been long reported that Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security. The only way to stop them is to prevent them from entering the country.
This includes not allowing the Syrian refugees into the country. Politicians in both parties say the U.S. has a moral obligation to take in those refugees. But the number one moral obligation for the United States, or any government is to protect their citizens. Since there is no way to vet those refugees before we allow those thousands of them to live in the U.S. we can’t bring them here—France did, and so far we know that at least two of the eight Paris terrorists snuck into the country as part of the Syrian refugee onslaught.
For decades’ terrorists have been feeding at the teat of western government. They cynically support the “political wing” of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah, acting as if they had no connection with the military wing. It’s just a semantics subterfuge– dangerous claptrap allowing governments to seemingly support “good behavior” while they are only denying the truth. Even here in the United States groups associated with Hamas, such as CAIR and the MSA are treated as legitimate human rights groups. And of course our recent love affair with Iran, the number one terrorist supporting country supports to the radical Islamist effort.
Isn’t it well past time for western nations to say, “We will not stand with any group or country that supports terrorism?” Why are our leaders working with Iran, talking to Qatar and ignoring the fact those countries are supporting terrorism? Instead of a political photo-op, why aren’t the countries who are supposedly fighting terrorism, saying they will not support the government of Lebanon as long as Hezbollah is part of the leadership, we won’t support the Palestinian Authority or any other group, as long as they have a “military wing?” Instead by our actions we are teaching radical Islamists that terrorism is a legitimate form of political expression.
In the end, America and our western allies are framing the question of “who is our enemy?” all wrong. Our enemy is radical Islam, and because when you frame it correctly that answer is scarier than first thought because it is not a rational war (if any war can be rational). More than any war in American history this is a war of ideology. And the ideology of radical Islam is in direct conflict with western values and culture. Or to paraphrase Sally Field, “They hate us, they really hate us.” Hiding that fact with silly games of political correctness prevent us from identifying and crushing radical Islam. This linguistic dishonesty of western leaders is accomplishing little beyond guaranteeing additional deaths of innocents and the eventual destruction of the western world.