Luck Is Not A Strategy

There’s no better way to summarize president Obama’s approach to fighting the war against jihad than this: For the next three years, we’re betting our safety on the proposition that Islamic thugs and terrorists will prove to be more incompetent than the Obama administration. In the aftermath of the Times Square bombing attempt, is there another way to consider it? How many “isolated incidents” have to pile up before the president wakes up to the fact that there’s a pattern, one that just might have something to do with a particular fundamentalist religious outlook, and that the politically correct bunker mentality is not going to cut it?

Reluctantly, Attorney General Eric Holder has conceded that it might be a good idea to adjust, not totally eliminate mind you, the law with regards to reading a terror suspect their Miranda rights, provided that it can be done within constitutional bounds, of course. Holder’s tepid foray into the waters of treating enemy combatants like enemies was prompted by the increasing volume of criticism showered on the administration for advising Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad that they have the right to remain silent. Holder assures us that both Abdulmutallab and Shahzad talked anyway, and perhaps they have, but are we really supposed to believe that investigators got as much out of them as they would have had not these enemy combatants been treated to the courtesies of our legal system?

The idea that we should extend constitutional protections to enemy combatants, particularly when that enemy is not in uniform, is a concept that would have perplexed any other American president in history, with the possible exception of James Earl Carter. The famous example of FDR summarily executing six Nazi spies found on American soil during World War II is but one case that illustrates the way our commanders-in-chief have always dealt with spies and saboteurs – until now.

But then few past presidents would approve of the “cower behind the walls” strategy of fighting this war that Obama has adopted. In the aftermath of Times Square, with three enemy infiltrations onto American soil in the space of six months, Senate Homeland Security chair Joe Liebermann observed:

“We were lucky. We did not prevent the attempted attack. It’s hard to stop them every time, but that has to be our goal. … So I’d say in terms of prevention, the system failed.”

We were lucky. We will have to continue to be lucky, because when you choose to go on the defensive, luck is the only thing that keeps a shell from landing in the wrong place at the wrong time and these particular shells have two legs and access to a bag of tricks. The history of warfare shows that in the battle between artillery and fortifications, artillery always wins, eventually. You build a castle and somebody is going to invent a trebuchet big enough to batter down your walls. Build a fort and somebody’s going to come along with a bigger cannon. The Obama administration is counting on the massive security apparatus of the United States to create the modern-day equivalent of the Maginot line around the borders of America, manned by an army of bureaucrats.

It’s not going to work. It’s never worked. Philosophically, Bush made it clear that he would target the enemy where he lies, for as long as it took to win. On the other hand, Obama makes it increasingly obvious that he longs to disengage from the enemy, thus providing them a host of targets over here, for as long as “isolated incidents” continue to occur.

In a tough, cynical world, ruthless leaders can smell weakness and this president reeks of it. During the 2008 campaign, when conservatives were critical of Obama’s offer to sit down with our enemies, a re-occurring example of the kind of hopeful change we could expect in a post-American world, liberals roundly accused them of war-mongering. In fact, there’s no mongering involved, there’s just war, right on our doorstep.

There’s no better example of the scorn with which angry, murderous jihadists view this president than the words of the man whom Obama really wanted to sit down with and have a chat and whom has thus become the sterling symbol of Obama’s global naiveté. Speaking to thousands of his countrymen with respect to Obama’s feeble attempts to curb Iran’s nuclear program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:

“Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience…. American officials bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn’t do a damn thing, let alone you.”

George W. Bush may have been the devil to Ahmadinejad and his ilk, but one would be foolish indeed not to fear the devil. To the Iranian president and his partners in waging jihad, Obama is no more than an ineffectual, unimportant, low-grade, mildly demonic imp, far down on the west’s satanic organizational chart. For them, Obama is annoying at times, sure – but not really anything to worry about.

If nothing changes about the way this administration fights the jihadists, consider the following scenario. In 2012 America elects a new, tough-on-terror president, in part because everyone recognizes how ineffective Obama has been as commander in chief. Ahmadinejad, seeing the writing on the wall – that his nuclear ambitions will go up in smoke courtesy of the Israeli Defense Force once the new, pro-Israel guy is sworn in and having put together a couple of nuclear tipped missiles under the UN’s noses – decides that it’s use it or lose it time.

Far-fetched? Sure, especially when you know that Israel has the capability to retaliate in force. But impossible? Mixing religious fanatics with weak, appeasing leadership in the west makes for a very dangerous stew. Based on his performance as a war-time leader so far, it’s going to take a significant tragedy before this president decides to fight.

  • rrsd

    USA must atack Iran before Iran been atackt by Israel.That time it will show the USA is realy taking sereas responsibilety for sake of Israel, sake of Medle East and the sake of American people. Mr. Obama MUST cut the hands of Ahmadinejead and hands of the terorist grops such as: Hezballah, Hammas, Mr Asad and Talaban. That time everyone can live with out fear.

  • Kim Bruce

    BTW…What is Napolitano doing down inspecting and chatting with the flood vicitms in Mississippi?
    Is that a new job of Homeland Security? I thought FEMA was supposed to do that?
    Perhaps Janet got demoted for her incompetence as head of HLS?

  • DeadReckoning

    Remember folks, "Security works just the way it is supposed to."

  • Mary

    Obama's incompetence has been demonstrated throughout his Administration's failure to separate fact from its own fiction. He is weak, even worse, his action, or, in some instances, lack thereof, demonstrate that he does not support Israel. It is my belief that he is willing to sacrifice the Jewish vote, with unpopular policies, and worse, The State Of Israel itself to Islamic Jihad. He hopes to recoup any losses he sustains among Jewish voters with the Hispanic vote. Failing that, he'll reinstate felons right to vote and make up any loss there. Everything Obama does is politically and/or personally expedient. No doubt he reasons too that if Iran decimates Israel, he has, in his mind, attempted to make strong alliances with the Arab world so he risks nothing, loses nothing. To a man like Obama, the fall of The State Of Israel, is nothing more than collateral damage.

  • Turbeaux

    How do terrorists have Miranda rights under the constitution of the USA when most terrorists are not even citizens of the USA, and in the case of Shahzad, he obviously lied for the purposes of stealth and deception when he took his citizenship oath? Hence, his citizenship should be revoked by default and he should have exactly zero Miranda rights under the constitution since he is an illegal combatant.

    Now, of course, GWB took a more proactive approach to combating terrorism in stark contrast to Obama’s reactive approach, after the fact and after it is already too late and thousands of innocent American lives have already been sacrifice. However, Bush did it by stupidly doubling the size of the federal government to combat terrorism and then also by pursuing two fantasy based nation-building missions with no hope of success whatsoever because they were based on idiotic and stupid assumptions.

    However, if GWB had not been a stealth liberal masquerading as a conservative who was also completely blinded by political correct multiculturalism, in lieu of doubling the size of the federal government and federal spending to combat terrorism, he would have instead banned and reversed Muslim immigration and sealed off the borders at the same time, and if he had done that instead, today not only would we all be far safer from terrorism since zero Muslims inside America equals zero probability of Islamic terrorist attacks, but think of all the money we would have saved and would still be saving today.

    I mean considering the fact that Obama’s spending is so out of control; can we really continue to afford accepting Muslim immigration and all of its excess baggage?

    With respect to GWB being the devil to Ahmadinejad and his ilk, I’m sorry I have to take exception to this. GWB deferred to multilateral negotiations by the European three plus Germany. Then after it became obvious that those negotiations had failed as was predictable, he repeatedly denied Israeli purchase request for refueling aircraft and bunker buster bombs at the same time he also refused to grant Israel flyover rights to flyover Iraq to facilitate an attack upon Iran’s nuclear installations. In other words, exactly like Obama is doing today, Bush also was the protector of Iran’s nuclear weapons program from potential Israeli attack.

    • Jim C.

      Turbeaux, you are hysterical and unrealistic about the whole 'Muslim' thing, which is surprising given the intelligence of your posts. You hyperbolize the problem (terrorism) and advocate a ridiculously extreme solution. Sometimes "political correctness" is actually politicaly correct.

      I do agree that immigration–in general–should be more stringent, more like that of European countries. This is not the Industrial Revolution anymore; we do not need hordes of laborers. And I also think close attention should be paid to those from Muslim countries.

      But we should not fail to notice what assets American Muslims can be in this struggle. Particularly second and third generation–why? Because freedom tastes better than sharia and sharia lite. American Muslims actually have assimilated pretty well, here, unlike Europe. But should mosques be under surveillance? Absolutely.

      • Jim C.

        Second–get ready for it–we have to get used to the idea that terrorist attacks can and will probably happen, despite ANY efforts to quell them; and not overreact, not freak out–in short, not let them scare us. That is their whole purpose. That is what they want. I think George Bush made some good foreign policy decisions, but he also wound up giving bin Ladin what he wanted–prolonged foreign entanglement, financial meltdown to name two. Why accede to what terrorists want?

        Terrorism has to be fought on many levels: domestic policing, foreign policy, intelligence, and national defense. What you are saying is just like getting rid of all automobiles because car accidents happen (which cost more in lives and treasure than terrorism, btw.)

        • Turbeaux

          What are you insane? Have you been rendered so ignorant and stupid by political correct multiculturalism and cultural relativism that you somehow believe that we Americans now have to accept Islamic terrorist attacks within our borders and the death, destruction, and maiming of thousands of innocent American civilian non-combatants without overreacting and freaking out and letting them scare us just to accommodate Muslim immigration and their excess baggage? And you called me hysterical, unrealistic, and hyperbolic? Dude, you should be locked up in a mental institution somewhere! Give me a break.

          As for as GWB’s foreign policy decisions go, he was an unhinged loon! Had he not been blinded by political correct multiculturalism and cultural relativism like you, in Afghanistan he would have targeted OBL and AQ only and never jumped in the middle of a civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban to attempt to win the hearts and minds of Muslims who are obligated to hate our guts by their so-called religion or tried to bring them democracy, when Islam is already a very radical system of totalitarianism.

          Likewise in Iraq, as soon as Saddam was captured and the country scoured for WMD, he would have removed the troops ASAP hoping at the same time that the vacuum we left behind would result in a jihad between the Shi’a and Sunnis that with any luck would have lasted for many years.

          The reality is GWB like you didn’t and still doesn’t have the first clue!

      • Turbeaux

        I can assure you that I’m not hysterical and being hyperbolic about the problem. However, in comparison to your knowledge of the issue, I have already forgotten more about Islam and Islamic civilization than you will ever likely come close to knowing and I haven’t been blinded by political correct multiculturalism and cultural relativism like you obviously have either.

        In addition, can you point to a single country anywhere in the world where mass Muslim immigration has taken place and where the majority of the Muslim immigrants assimilated and integrated instead of forming Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside? I’ll give you a hint: there is no such place on the planet!

        Hence, what could possibly make you so naïve and gullible that you could believe that America alone in the world could be the only exception to the rule? The reality is Muslims don’t immigrate to assimilate, they only immigrate to one day dominate!

        Moreover, can you point to a country anywhere in the world where mass Muslim immigration has taken place that hasn’t become the victim of incessant Islamic terrorist attacks and where there homeland security budget wasn’t doubled or tripled just to accommodate Muslim immigration and all their excess baggage?

        With respect to Muslim immigration, what exactly do Muslims have to contribute to America that makes doubling the size of our federal government and federal spending, not to mention the lost of privacy and the many security inconveniences we must all now endure just to accommodate Muslim immigration worth it, other than honor killings, genital mutilation, oppression of gays, institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslim dhimmis, institutionalized prejudice against all non-Muslim kafir infidels, extreme bigotry against Jews and other non-Muslim kafir infidels, riots against Israel, rampant anti-Semitism, worldwide riots against Muhammad cartoons, violence, riots, and condemnations against any and all criticism of Islam, legitimate or otherwise, Islamic supremacism, refusal to assimilate and integrate, backwardness, barbarianism, intimidation, constant demands for Islamic Sharia Law, subversion to remove all obstacles to the eventual imposition of Islamic Sharia Law, Muslim no go zones, incessant claims of victimhood, false, fake, and non-existent claims of discrimination and persecution, exploitation of our freedoms and laws for the purpose of subverting us and using those laws against us to eventually make Islam supreme, incessant threats of terrorism, and more Islamic terrorist attacks?

  • Stern

    robert a, the simple answer is that Israel chose to exist.For Ahmidendjad and the mad Mullahs, that's all it takes.

  • Turbeaux

    It's because Israel is a kafir infidel state on land that once was a part of the Dar al Islam and land that was once part of the Dar al Islam must always remain a part of the Dar al Islam. Hence, the jihad against Israel, like the jihad against India, is permanent and will last as long as the international Islamic ummah is strong enough to pursue jihad.

  • guest

    Many "answers" here…Israel is a small economic and technological powerhouse with incredible talent and becoming more so. Recognized way beyond high tech. Virtually EVERY major IT company has a research center in Israel: Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Motorola (Israeli techies developed the first cell phone with them), Intel (their largest plant). Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google recently said that if Israel ever was shut down, "Google would be in deep, deep trouble." Israel attracts MORE venture capital than France and Germany combined and next to the U.S. has more listings than any other nation on the NASDAQ. But I suspect the Koran has more to speak to Ahmadinejad's fanaticism–its a nasty, hateful document peppered with more venom towards the Jews than even the Christians. And why not? The Jews are 180 degrees in the opposite direction…a rational culture that values knowledge, learning and a mandate to explore and debate virtually EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. They are the prototypical "free thinkers" with no "clerics" (rabbis are hired and fired) and no hierarchy to silence individual conscience. About 80 % of the Freedom Riders, those young people who went down South years ago to break segregation, were of Jewish background and several got lynched (you should remember that Obama). Israel is too powerful for Ahmadinejad, who seeks to be THE major power in the area. Israel is just getting stronger and stronger, even throughout the campaign of constant terror. And lastly, the Arab world has been so primed on Jew hatred that they make for a good diversion away from the tyranny of virtually all Arab regimes, with Iran being right up there with the best of them.

  • Carolina Don

    Guest: Excellent, excellent answer, but may I add that the beginnings of the strife can be found in the Bible if you read Genesis about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

  • Jim C.

    As for your view on Iraq, I agree; hell, I don't know what Saddam had to do with 9/11 anyway so I'm not sure why we went other than looking like we were finally putting teeth to the UN. And Afghanistan, we should leave yesterday, tape a note to the door that says "You're welcome, mind who you let in your country next time." Politically, though, that'd be a bad idea. Welcome to the big old world.