By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
In the wake of Wednesday’s terrorist attack in California, the U.S. needs to ask itself what is America’s terrorism strategy, or does it even have one?
Since the Paris terror attacks, President Obama has given conflicting and often confusing statements regarding terror threats to the United States. The day before Thanksgiving the President reassured the nation that, “Now, right now, we know of no specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland. And that is based on the latest information I just received in the Situation Room. It is similar to the information that I — the briefing that I received on Saturday before I left on my trip last week.”
At the Global Warming Conference in Paris, President Obama remarked that global warming was a greater threat then terrorism, and continued by commenting that this would be a greater rebuke then by holding this summit.
“We stand united in solidarity, not only to deliver justice to the terrorist network responsible for those attacks, but to protect our people and uphold the enduring values that keep us strong and keep us free. We salute the people of Pairs for insisting that this crucial conference go on, an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children. What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it.”
After Wednesday’s terror attack the president had difficulty expressing anger and left many bewildered by his remarks. In his weekly radio address, President Obama still could not mention what many national security strategist have agreed upon, the U.S. is in a war against radical Islam. The president in his remarks pivoted to the political narrative that the nation needs meaningful gun control to stop such mayhem.
By failing to address the root cause of this terror attack he has failed to listen, understand, and embrace what even President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who spoke in harsh terms back in January, where he called out the Islamic clerics who have allowed these fundamentalist to highjack our religion.
“I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”
Unfortunately, the president fails to understand the axiom articulated by Sun Tzu, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
The president fails to understand the threat the U.S. is facing and continues to struggle with the enemy to the United States and the west; which is Islamic fundamentalism. This lack of understanding has also infected the Republican Party, as many leading contenders for the party’s nomination for president believe that bombing ISIS is the core solution. They must realize that because of the lack of resolve by the U.S. the past few years, it has left the United States with few good options.
President Obama continues to state that the goal of the U.S. is to contain and destroy ISIS, and recently has sent fifty additional Special Forces personnel to the region to bolster those already present, but has left little on how he intends to pursue this strategy.
Even in his nationally televised address to the nation on Sunday, President Obama continues to state what the U.S. continues to do against ISIS, by attacking there sanctuaries in Iraq, and Syria, train Iraqi and Syrian forces on the ground in defeating ISIS, work with our allies in Europe and in the region, provide American leadership in a political solution for the conflict inside Syria, but unfortunately for the U.S., all these proposals by the administration have been lackluster at best.
The president also wanted the Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that he submitted back in February, which has stalled because both Democrats and Republicans refuse to back it for different reasons.
Nothing in his address was a sharp deviation from the current strategy. On the domestic front the president pivoted to the political land mine of gun control such as making it harder for people to by military style weapons, and advocating that Congress should make sure no one who is on the no-fly list should buy a gun, unfortunately the two terrorists were not on any no-fly list, and had a visa screening process.
Now, leading Republican candidate Donald Trump has consistently stated he would be tougher and would actually bomb ISIS relentlessly, and consistently states that he has a plan for defeating terrorism, but never elaborates beyond his fiery rhetoric what his comprehensive strategy is.
Failing to act when Syria descended into civil war in 2011, again leaves the U.S. with few good options, and in each situation has serious consequences. The problem the president, Democrats and the Republican candidates for president have never articulated beyond their strategy against ISIS, are the other problems associated with defeating ISIS.
Once ISIS is defeated who fills the vacuum, will that be the al-Nusra Front an al-Qaeda related terror group? For years the president has stated Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad must go, but has never stated how this would be accomplished or who will take his place. No Republican candidate has stated who replaces ISIS once they are defeated.
The situation has become more complex with the introduction of Russian forces carrying out military operations in backing the Assad regime, with the help of Iranian back troops and its proxy Hezbollah.
Another issue is – what is the progress of an effective Iraqi ground force… how about leveraging Iraqi Sunni tribes to include mobilizing the Sunni Arab states?
The difficult aspect the U.S. will face in defeating ISIS is that many of our traditional allies in the region, especially the Sunni Arab nations we need, do not trust the United States and believe that the Obama administration is not serious. Many in the region believe that the U.S. is secretly aiding ISIS as well.
Right now, of all the nations in the region, all have different strategic interests. Turkey is concerned about Kurdish aspirations and emphatically do not want a Kurdish homeland on its border; Russia’s sole focus is maintaining its two military bases inside Syria; Saudi Arabia is focused in Yemen combating Shiite militants, sponsored by Iran; Egypt is heavily involved in the Sinai.
Everyone’s strategic aims do not coincide with the U.S., but all do not trust, have faith, or fear the United States.
The situation is more complex and complicated then the Democratic and Republican candidates know, and this with the media complicit as it fails to press the aspirants by asking the tough questions beyond the unsophisticated questions they currently ask.
Whoever becomes president will have a difficult task ahead of them. Right now the U.S. lacks a terrorism strategy both at home and abroad!
Comments are closed.