The day after the Paris
massacre Barack Obama released another five prisoners from Gitmo. Doing so, our president later explained, was
in the national interest. As everyone
knew, imprisoning even the worst of the worst served as a recruiting tool for
ISIS.
Within days after the French
began bombing ISIS, we also learned something our rules of engagement. It seems that we had not been bombing the
trucks ISIS uses to transport oil. These
remained off-limits despite enabling them to acquire millions in hard
currency. Because such an assault might
have slaughtered civilian drivers, this would have furnished another recruiting
tool.
Then too, during the
Democratic presidential debate, the candidates studiously avoided identifying
the enemy as Radical Islam. The
president did likewise in his Turkish news conference. We were told that to conflate Radical Islam
with Islam would infuriate otherwise peace-loving Muslims, who might
subsequently rise up, in the millions, to support ISIS.
The president and his
minions have similarly argued that it is essential to admit Syrian refugees
into our country. Although this might
allow terrorists to slip through, such a policy is accord with our longstanding
values. What is more, not doing so would
surely offend Muslims—who are assumed to be super-sensitive.
Secretary of State John
Kerry actually went so far as to excuse the Charlie Hebdo massacre. In a classic gaffe, he opined that Islamists
had a “legitimate” reason to murder those who disrespected the prophet. Defaming a great world religion was obviously
an intolerable insult.
By now it has also become
routine for this administration to ask Israel to be restrained whenever its
citizens are attacked. Whether they are
killed by rockets, or knifed in the streets, it is essential to be
even-handed. To do otherwise might
suggest that we do not value Muslim lives.
Lastly, because we want to
avoid collateral damage, we have been averaging less than seven sorties a day
in our air campaign against ISIS. As a
result, we are asked to be patient. If
we are to defeat these thugs, we must understand that it will take years. A more robust response would betray our
democratic principles.
Napoleon Bonaparte declared
that if you intend to take Vienna, you must take Vienna. Half measures do not win wars. Hence, if we expect to eliminate the scourge
of Islamic terrorism, we must eliminate it!
We also learned something
else in the wake of the Parisian calamity.
Many of the terrorists had only recently been radicalized. Before they took up the ISIS cause, they had
been living desolate lives of alcohol abuse and promiscuity. Although many were born in Europe, they were alienated
from its culture.
Herein lies a clue as to how
we must strike the radicals. We have to
begin by classifying militant Islamists as Islamic. Unless we recognize their religious motives,
we cannot defeat them.
Islam is central to the ISIS
mission. Its leaders do not recruit by
documenting American barbarism. People
who subscribe to suicide bombings care not a whit about who is held prisoner or
how many civilians die. They are instead
determined to re-establish their caliphate.
As these warriors are all
too aware, Islam has been under siege for centuries. Non-believers seriously humiliated its once
glorious empire. The only way to reverse
this tragedy is by reviving a medieval version of the faith. This is what inspired their former victories
and it will again.
The attraction of ISIS is thus
that it provides hope to the downtrodden.
It offers visions of glory to countless millions who have been
struggling with a sense of inferiority.
The answer is consequently to deprive them of this hope.
And how to we do that? Why, with decisive victories. Only after it is clear that the radicals cannot
win will they cease to provide an appealing alternative. This, not willful blindness, is what will
terminate their recruiting. A supine
sensitivity has never brought criminals to justice.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment