The White House is holding a three-day summit on violent extremism — but of course, not specifically Islamic extremism (actually militant Islam and jihadism). Attendees will examine various courses of action such as more community involvement, but are concerned about an “us versus them” narrative.
Well, someone forget to tell ISIS about that, as well as the panoply of Islamic terrorist groups. We continue to dismiss this issue and attempt to separate the ideology from the enemy — very hard to do. As a matter of fact, according to his op-ed piece today in the LA Times, President Obama believes this is about “hearts and minds.” It seems Marie Harf’s statements indeed reflect the agenda of the Obama administration — that we need to promote jobs and better opportunities. And that follows Hillary Clinton’s comments that we need to “empathize with our enemy.
Against that backdrop comes the somewhat disconcerting words of outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, as reported by the Daily Caller, who mocked Fox News at the National Press Club Tuesday for talking so much about the Obama administration’s refusal to use the term “radical Islam.”
Holder said, “We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really. If Fox didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me. Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that.”
You can watch his full comments here.
This is the same Eric Holder in the address Tuesday at the National Press Club who seems to believe that we are not in a “time of war.” Then what are 300 Marines doing five miles away from the enemy? And why is President Obama requesting an AUMF? This further demonstrates the extreme level of confusion regarding policy emanating from this current administration.
For those of us who have served or are serving, it reflects what we fear most: “mission creep.” Military forces are being committed without any clear guidance, direction or strategy.
In order to combat Islamic terrorism and extremism, we don’t need “hearts and minds” rhetoric. That simply will not work. How do you combat an enemy who beheads and sets aflame innocent people? First, you recognize their ideology and then you meet them with hardened force and defeat them with a goal to ultimately destroy their existence — in other words, victory.
This concept has escaped America over the past years — a bipartisan problem — but now this is exacerbated in a completely dangerous way.
This cannot be about law enforcement, jobs and “soft power” engagement — truly Chamberlain-esque in every manner. The enemy is waging a holy war against us — that must be recognized. We are embarking upon a civilizational war to protect and preserve simple concepts of individual rights and freedoms. If we do not make that clear delineation we fail to win the information war — very vital.
If we cannot draw upon the lessons of history that this enemy is using to its advantage and turn it to our advantage, then we shall NOT be successful. There has to be a Churchill in the wings who can stem this tide.
There has to be a committed battle commander in the mold of Charles Martel who turns back the enemy. And yes, there must be those within the Islamic world, leaders, who realize the long-term threat this enemy has and why a reformation is necessary for their belief to come into the 21st century with a modernity that respects constitutional governance and the liberty of the individual.
What I’ve seen in this week so far (and it’s only Wednesday) is the dangerous unwillingness to meet this enemy on the two critical battlefields — the ideological and the physical. My recommendation for President Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Marie Harf would be to read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” — then give me a call. We all know they read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” cover to cover, but this is not about community organizing against your political opposition.
However, I wish the same vehement vitriol — with the tactics of intimidation, coercion, and deceit — that the progressive socialist left uses against constitutional conservatives would be employed against the real enemies of America and freedom, the Islamic fascists and totalitarians.
Then again, perhaps somewhere deep down inside they have a common sense of purpose?