Our Mothers warned us: “Play nice”. In polite society we don’t make waves.
“Love your enemies”, says Jeb Bush, “and kill them with kindness”.
Turn the other cheek.
As a Nation, we have taken all this to heart.
A very civilized approach to politics and war after all, say the Progressives.
So this is how far we have come since Reagan days:
Obama on Benghazi: “Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal”.
Obama about 9/11: “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”
Just 2,977 dead Americans, that’s all. No big deal, right? We absorbed it. Just dead Americans.
As Hillary Clinton said, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
Contrast the foregoing insane platitudes with the following events:
1. During the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan several military officers were taken hostage. The captor’s ransom demands were met with Russian silence, followed by kidnapping of the local warlord’s son. Shortly an unmarked package was delivered to the warlord, containing an ear.
2. Consider Imad Mughniyah who was wanted for a long list of crimes including, but not limited to:
• the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut,
• the 1983 attack on the embassy in that city which killed 63 people,
• the 1984 kidnapping, torture and murder of the CIA station chief in Lebanon. Mughniyah sent videotapes of the brutal interrogation to the CIA.
• the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the slaying of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, a passenger on the plane
• the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.
In 2008, Imad Mughniyah was killed by a remote controlled directional bomb on a Damascus street; CIA and MOSSAD suspected.
3. During recent ISIS attacks, a Jordanian pilot was captured and threatened with execution. Elijah Magnier, chief international correspondent for Kuwait’s Al Rai newspaper, told the UK MailOnline: ‘I have a reliable contact in the Jordanian government who says a message has been passed to ISIS.’
“It warns that if they kill the pilot, Jordan will implement the death sentences for Sajida [wife of a former suicide bomber who killed 38 people at a Jordanian wedding reception] and other ISIS prisoners as soon as possible.”
Brutal? Yes. Effective? Also yes.
Recall the apocryphal story of the Texan accused of murder who, when asked by the judge if he had anything to say in his defense, replied, “Well, your Honor, I guess he just needed killin’…” Most Americans would agree that this was true for Osama Bin Laden.
But responding to the death of Mughniyah, international ‘legal scholars’ condemned the bombing, thus:
“It is a killing method used by terrorists and gangsters,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor of international law at Notre Dame University. “It violates one of the oldest battlefield rules.” Legal scholars see this as a violation of international laws that proscribe “killing by perfidy” – using treacherous means to kill or wound an enemy.
So killing bin Laden was justified, but not Mughniyah? Is it just the method that is wrong? Or is it that Progressives reserve the right to decide which killings are justified and which killings are not?
This is the result of lawfare having replaced warfighting in the American military and political leadership. There can be no proper response to any attack until Progressive lawyers approve.
Remind yourself that Obama has approved killing American citizens far away from any battlefield. Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the “right” to carry out such assassinations.
This is a President who likes to personally select drone targets (remember LBJ picking bombing targets during the Viet Nam war?). Deaths from collateral damage? No problem if Obama orders the strikes.
Progressives are not troubled. He’s our Progressive President and bears no responsibility for any actions he takes.
Is not Obama violating “international laws”? Progressive talking points don’t have to be consistent or make sense.
What to do now?
For the next two years America will just have to take the terrorist blows while the ‘leadership’ mouths meaningless threats of bringing to justice, drawing red lines, condemning in the strongest possible terms, building coalitions, invoking sanctions, demanding ‘don’t call my bluff’. This will continue until a terrorist catastrophe on American soil occurs, when we will raise the threat level to yellow. Obama will make really stern speeches, and John Kerry will voice righteous indignation, assuring that “this shall not stand”. (Kerry also briefly served in Viet Nam.)
The Republican majority in Congress will applaud politely and try to approve a meaningless ‘sense of the Congress’ that this unseemly man-caused violence has to stop. Or else.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will effortlessly block the vote. Boehner and McConnell will say that their hands were tied and nothing could be done. Alas, that lawless Obama.
Longer term? A strong conservative President (think Reagan) will send the lawyers out of the room, make serious war plans, and take steps to kill terrorists starting as soon as possible wherever they are. Virtually all foreign aid will be reviewed and suspended as appropriate. Countries harboring terrorists will be paralyzed by any method needed. Paralysis will continue until terrorists are identified and ejected.
Progressives will wail about the uncivilized illegality of it all.
The President will smile and ask, “So what?” And the Nation will turn the corner on terrorism.