Lex Anteinternet: Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the ...: Quite some time ago I published this thread, and then later came in to update it: Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American s...
To my surprise, the President chose to address the nation from the Oval Office regarding this terrible event, or what's inspiring it, yesterday. I'm going to set his entire speech out below in its entirety, as that's the fair thing to do. Then I"m going to make some comments regarding it, and thing surrounding it, below that.
Official portrait of a smiling President Obama. In actuality, the pressures of the job appear to make him look older every day, as they do for most Presidents.
The Speech
Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.
Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.
The F.B.I. is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.
Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership.
Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.
To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.
Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.
We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.
Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.
Initial Commentary by the Press and Politicians.Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
I haven't seen all that much commentary from the press and pols yet, but I did see this morning that the Today Show summarized the speech in a caption by noting that the President called ISIL "thugs" and called "for gun measures", or something like that.
What dimwitted captioning.
Sure, he may have called ISIL thugs but that was hardly the main point of the speech and the speech, while it touches on domestic gun policy (and I'll comment on that) only barely did.
An F for you Today Show. Back to grade school.
I don't know how many current candidates reacted to it either. Recently Democratic and Republican candidates have been reacting to distance themselves form the President on almost everything amazingly fast. But I do know that Donald Trump reacted with 90 seconds of the speech. Boo hiss.
I don't comment much on the current Presidential candidates, but I will here. This has been the singularly most disappointing Presidential election campaign of my entire life so far, and I can recall campaigns back to Nixon's. None of the front runners on either side are impressive and frankly things are beginning to get a bit scary. If things keep proceeding the way that they are, we're going to get a poor choice, in my view, no matter who wins.
A politician can't react with thoughtful consideration to something 90 seconds after it happened, and snippets about it being poor that quickly are not well thought out.
The Speech in General.
Okay, if The Today Show gets an F, the President gets the "where were you on that day in class" comment.
I'm not one of those individuals who thinks President Obama does everything wrong by any means. I often feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for him in part as I suspect he has a life size poster of Woodrow Wilson hanging in his chambers and that he's trying to channel the ineffective 28th President of the United States. Unlike Wilson, he doesn't have a creepy racist streak, but he is affiliated by an academic mindset that makes him stunningly ineffective.
If President Obama is haunted by the ghost of Woodrow Wilson, he should be.
And here he's been that. This speech doesn't come after a "turning point" like it proclaims. I guess I can't blame him for not admitting what hardly anyone else has been willing to admit, that this war has been running for a long time, will run for a long time, and part of it will be fought out here, but somebody ought to just flat out state it.
I will give him credit, however, for keeping it pretty focused on the actual topic, Islamic terrorism. If you read the social media sites people have taken this story and run off to fight about other things, often with poorly thought out comments. And politicians are often inclined to do that. He didn't.
Now, let's break the speech down.
The Speech in Particular
My comments appear below what I'm commenting on. In some places, parts of the President's speech are highlighted where a particular items is commented on.
Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.It hadn't occurred to me before reading this, but the fact that this was a "Holiday" gathering may very well have something to do with why this place was attacked on this day, both in terms of his personal choice and its symbolic one.
We continue to only barely address the "Islamic", and by that we mean the extreme Islamic nature, of what we're facing, but that's been an element in both of the recent attacks, perhaps. The venue chosen in Paris appears to have been chosen in part because it was an area where secularized Muslims went. I.e., they were the "apostates" the terrorist were targeting. Here, we see a fellow targeting his co-workers while they were celebrating a holiday that has its origin as a Holy Day.
We hate the idea that we're in a religious war, as we don't fight those and we like to believe that those are remnants of some bad old days we grew out of. Well, we're in one.
Recognition of the fact that we're in a war with Islamic extremist is long over due. But is it a perversion of Islam?Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.
The F.B.I. is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.
The black flag of the Wahhabi combatants that brought the House of Saud to power. The Islamic State has its own black flag.
Maybe. This movement somewhat has its roots in Wahhabi Sunnism. That movement was regarded as heretical by other Muslims when it first appeared on the Arabian Peninsula. But, the militant and puritanical movement obtained legitimacy when the House of Saud became allied to it.
Now, in fairness, the House of Saud isn't the Islamic State, but the repressive regime has preserved this extreme variant of Islam and out of it have come some fanatic movements, first Al Queda and now ISIL. The difference between the two has to do with their view of when and how the Caliphate will be restored, and here ISIL may truly be not only radical, but heretical. Hence, in part, the conflict that has existed between ISIL and Al Queda in some places, and ISIL and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Essentially, ISIL has taken the core of Wahhabi beliefs and them declared themselves to be the only legitimate standard bearers.
The green flag of Saudi Arabia.
But that some would be drawn to them is not as odd as it may seem. Saudi Arabia funds a huge number of mosques in the United States and as a result its difficult for Muslims here not to be exposed to it. And in some ways, the radical nature of the appeal of this is perhaps no more radical than some of the most extreme movements during the Reformation, which would have looked equally bizarre and appalling from the outside, or from southern Catholic Europe, during that period.
That is to say, those drawn to this aren't necessarily falling into religious decay, but maybe something they view as the opposite, which makes this a much more difficult thing to confront. More on this is set out below.
Al Queda was at war with us well before September 11, 2001. We just woke up to it at that time. Prior to that, there had been the attack on the USS Cole and a prior Islamic extremist attempt on the Twin Towers.Our nation has been at war with terrorists since Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating Al Qaeda’s leadership.
This may be a bit of a minor point, perhaps akin to recalling that the US was really engaged in World War Two prior to December 7, 1941, but still, it's something worth recalling, as if we do not accurately recall such things, we are prone to make mistaken assumptions and judgments.
Long overdue recognition of this basic fact at last, and the first I've seen acknowledging the Ft. Hood attacks were a terrorist attack. The government previously categorized the attack at Ft. Hood as "work place violence", which it clearly is not in the meaningful sense.Over the last few years, however, the terrorist threat has evolved into a new phase. As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino. And as groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and then Syria, and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers.
I suspect, long term, he's correct. But perhaps not so much for reasons he suspects as in that classic Western liberalism, as opposed to political liberalism as we currently define it, will win. And that will start to occur in Islamic societies with women first, but that's another topic really.For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and co-workers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.
Long term, anyhow, we will win. But let's be honest now. We're loosing. And not only on the battlefield in the Middle East, where ISIL has gone from being a movement to a real state, but in the west, where the culture has become so anemic that the philosophy which ISIL espouses is attractive not only to members of the immigrant Muslim population but native born westerners as well.
Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
And here's where the poor strategic analysis really begins.Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.
Arming Syrian forces to take on the Islamic State is a proven failure and its not going to improve ever. There are no serious and capable pro western democratic forces in Syria, and darned few in Iraq either. The only really capable forces fighting the Islamic State on the ground are Kurdish militias and the Syrian army, neither of which is is pro western. The Kurds, as admirable as they are, are for an independent socialist, or even quasi communist, Kurdistan that none of their neighbors can see come into existence. The Syrian government is basically fascist. Our best hope, really, is to bolster a Kurdistan, probably federated within Iraq, that would make us a bit queasy, as at least it wouldn't be a theocracy, and to bolster the Syrian government, which is going to make us queasy but which at least as a recognizably western, albeit fascist, form of government.
Any other rebel force in the region is going to be Islamist. The Iraqi government is going to be an Iranian satellite. That's just the way it is.
Unless we're really willing to surrender initiative to our friends and allies, we better think about this.Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations — to disrupt plots, cut off their financing, and prevent them from recruiting more fighters. Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies. We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Starting in 1958, we worked to squash initiative amongst our friends and allies like a bug, and we've been at that ever since. We were diligently against our ally France's effort in Algeria, and probably rightly, but we were against it. We opposed our allies and friend's intervention in the Suez in 1958 as well, and that stopped it from freely occurring at the same level ever since. Only France has really been active to any significant degree independent of the United States.
Okay, I"m fine with us saying "you guys take the lead", but that means unleashing independent goals that we can't control. For the Turks, that means squashing the Kurds, let's not be naive. And if that actually meant, and it won't, that France and the UK went into Syria on the ground, they're not going to let us tell them how to rebuilt the place thereafter. Nor should they. Nor would it be a good idea in that context.
Plenty of our friends and allies have independent goals in the world.
So, if France invokes Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and says its going to put together a European Expeditionary Force and cross over from ally Turkey's land, we're okay with that, right?
Right?
Um, right?
Oh what a bunch of naive slop.Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue cease-fires and a political resolution to the Syrian war. Doing so will allow the Syrian people and every country, including our allies, but also countries like Russia, to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.
This is President Obama lecturing the students about the upcoming final. We've been looking towards this process for years now, and the alternative process, a civil war, is the one that's being used. Our "leadership" on this is anemic and making things worse.
This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done. That’s why I’ve ordered the departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.
Okay, I earlier posted an item on this blog called They're Not Dogs arguing that we should continue to take in Syrian refugees, and I still feel this way. But this item touches on immigration in general, and here we really need to rethink what we're doing in general, although not for reasons that have anything to do with terrorism at all.
American immigration policies in general really contemplate a much less populated continent. For most of our history, while we've had a policy, the policy was really geared towards taking in Europeans, for the most part, who could hopefully add to our economy. Under a reform of the system sponsored by Ted Kennedy, however, we opened the doors wide open to the sentiments expressed on the Statute of Liberty, i.e., "give me your poor".
That's nice as a sentiment, but it also naively assumes that cultures don't matter and that economics don't matter. They do. And a policy that takes in members of like cultures that are designed to add to our own economy is the sane policy for a nation. Taking in anyone else is the admirable policy of a charity, which the country isn't, and therefore must be carefully considered, just as any immigration policy must and should be. I'm not saying don't, I'm saying think.
The United States is pretty much "full up", whether those inside the beltway realize it or not. We are actually losing more Hispanic migrants to Mexico now than we are gaining. What's that say about us? Taking in refugees is one thing, but continuing to take in any immigrant up to 1M per year, in a country that has as many native poor as we do, is mean to the native poor and stupid. Until our own internal immigrants, mostly people of color, have actually achieved parity with the majority of Americans, we probably ought to really such routine immigration down.
All of which has nothing whatsoever with taking in refugees, which is a moral obligation, and thereby extension doesn't touch upon the few members of the distressed Syrian population we are set to take in.
Now, here at home, we have to work together to address the challenge. There are several steps that Congress should take right away.
People keep asking about the "no fly list" on gun control, but the list has a 40% error rate and this provision is probably unconstitutional. Even if we modified the list to make it much more accurate, given that holding highly negative views against the United States does not equate with depriving a person of a Constitutional right. A person can be a Muslim hard liner, or a Communist, or a Fascist, and still have the full range of constitutional rights.To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.
There is a solution for that, however.
Declare war.
I have an upcoming post on that which will go into it in detail, but at htis point, the Islamic State is a state, and we might as well quit pretending. Declaring war would allow the government to regard those with probable traitorous intent to be regarded in that fashion, or allow the government to take other reasonable means to deprive these people of the ability to act.
But Congress and the President have lost this part of the Constitution and are afraid of it. They need to get over that. If President Obama asked for a Declaration of War now, he'd get it.
But then, he'd also have to get off his duff and actually commit to fighting ISIL, which means more than warm feelings towards our allies, an air commitment, and treating the entire thing as a large law enforcement action. He won't. Because at the end of the day, he feels that ISIL won't show up for the final exam and will get an F for the term.
I know that it may be pedantic, but one of the things that drives people who know something about guns nuts is the stupid stuff the ignorant say about them, particular ignorant policy makes.We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.
No "powerful assault weapons" have been used in a crime in this country since the Great Depression. Indeed, for the banners, they ought to take a lesson in that in that the lat time "powerful assault weapons" were used it resulted in the National Firearms Act. The NFA, by the way, did not ban automatic weapons nor prohibit their ownership, but it does treat them differently under the law. Why don't these people actually look at a law that they passed htat worked?
Probably because they dimly believe that a semi automatic rifle is an "assault weapon". Not even close. And semi automatic weapons have been available on the commercial market for over a century. Indeed, they were available as civilian weapons before they were used as military ones.
So, the first task in addressing any topic like this would be to quit having people make laws based on their poor understanding of what they're addressing. Indeed, that's always the case. That's why people wouldn't want me writing laws on stock cars or football, as I don't like them and my law would be ignorant and oppressive.
Indeed, as noted above, that's a good idea.Next, we should put in place stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones. And we’re working with members of both parties in Congress to do exactly that.
No, Congress should Declare War.Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.
Short of that, it should do what the President asks here, but what it really ought to do is to declare war.
My fellow Americans, these are the steps that we can take together to defeat the terrorist threat. Let me now say a word about what we should not do.
We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.
The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we’ll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.
Too late for this one.
Early on, I'd have agreed on Syria. I don't agree so much on Iraq, which we broke, and then left too early. We're paying the consequence on Iraq now. But in some ways, breaking Iraq broke Syria, and so both are our responsibility.
There are no competent ground forces in the region that can both topple the Islamic State and result in a regime we'd admire. Indeed, in Syria, the competent ground force that is now gaining ground is the Syrian army, and it's going to win thanks to the assistance of the Russians. And the sooner the better.
Otherwise, all that really exists are what amount to militias and the remnant of the Iraqi army, and that's not going to get the job done. The much celebrated Kurds are nothing more than a regional militia, or rather series of militias, and they control now most of what they'll fight for. Indeed, their task is to hold that from the Syrians, the Islamic State and as a practical matter, Turkey. The Iraqi army is a disaster, thanks to the Iraqi government we left in place too soon, which is Shiia dominated and which has alienated the Sunnis. The remaining militias tend to be Shiia militias which aren't going to gain popularity with Sunni populations. Indeed, the Sunnis being close in locality to Saudi Arabia, which is the fountain of Sunni radicalism, will likely at some point begin to look sympathetically towards it.
What is needed is a western army, or at least a western lead army. And that army is going to have to occupy at least Iraq for some time, or this will repeat.
We aren't going to win this by using aircraft and 50 SF troops. There's no earthly way that will occur.
Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
On the three paragraphs above, while all of this is true, the problem is that the counter also tends to be true. Muslims are, as a rule, amazingly mute on this topic. Not all. Indeed, an organization of Muslim women in the United States started loudly protesting the capture of their faith by extremist earlier this week. Although notable in that is that they were Shiia women who were protesting against the exclusively Sunni ISIL.That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that.
Indeed, that's an element of this that will continue to perplex us. There is not one "Islam", but a variety of Islams. Within those groups there's no easy way for one group to proclaim its own members out of line, as long as those members can cite to the Koran. Muslims can, are, and should protest ISIL, but they can only really do so here because they are Shiia, and ISIL is a Sunni movement. Ironically, when Iran was the center of radicalism, it was really only the Sunnis, the second largest Islamic branch, which could complain about that.
Sunni Islam is a very large segment of Islam and therefore in order for what's noted above to be really effective, Sunnis themselves have to declare ISIL to be an anathema. But they really can't do so easily. They tend to be muted, and for a variety of reasons. The degree of sympathy towards theoretical, rather than actual, extreme Sunni actions also tends to be surprisingly high in western Sunni communities, although it does not represent the majority of their views.
Put another way, the problem we have here is that Islam doesn't resemble any of the large Christian denominations. While it likely had its origins as a Gnostic Christian heresy, it has not retained the early Church's structure the way that the Catholic, Orthodox, and those Protestant churches based on the Catholic Church, have. Therefore, there's no easy way for the faith itself to proclaim something improper. By way of an example, during the Irish Civil War, the Republicans, almost all Catholic to a man, found themselves facing excommunication for fighting the Irish Free State, essentially taking the wind out of their sales. There's no central Sunni authority that can do that.
Islam more closely resembles, in that fashion, what are called "free" or "non denominational" churches in the United States, although not purely so that either. Theologically, these types of Protestant denominations form around a pastor who holds his own views on the Bible, and the congregation can accept them or vote with their feet, but one non denominational church can't really proclaim another across town to be completely out of sink with Christianity and have that mean much to anyone. Likewise, it isn't very meaningful if one Mullah declares the Islamic State's views to be out of sink with the Koran.
This is all the more problematic as while the movement which gave rise to this extreme version of Sunnism was regarded as heretical at first, it no longer is and the Saudi's fund most mosque in the United States, thereby perpetuating this sort of theological view.
And to compound matters, for a long time, at least since the disappearance of the Hellenic branch of Islam, reforms of the faith have tended to be conservative, which is also often missed. They don't reform "forward", but "back". That puts their Muslim faithful in a difficult positions.
Which is likely why Islam has suffered a huge decline in numbers if the region where the fighting is occurring. But that as a solution is something that no western government can urge. Over time, chances are very high that most western Muslims will practice their faith in a fashion that most western Jews do. In a reformed fashion. But that will take time to come about, and while it's coming about, the hard core in their own community are targeting them and will continue to do so.
My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.
Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear; that we have always met challenges — whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks — by coming together around our common ideals as one nation, as one people. So long as we stay true to that tradition, I have no doubt America will prevail.
Interesting times.Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
.jpg)
