The editors of the Washington Post, who write strange
editorials more often than not, wrote one on August 8, 2014 that goes beyond
the limits of strangeness even by their own standards. It came under the title:
“Obama's authorization of Iraq
airstrikes isn't connected to a coherent strategy”.
What makes some readers scratch their heads in puzzlement is
that the editors should have known that Greg Miller was working on an article
they published the next day under the title: “Fighters abandoning al-Qaeda
affiliates to join Islamic State, U.S. officials say,” and yet went on to
publish that editorial anyway.
The strange part is not that they begin by praising the
President for ordering airstrikes on the forces of the Islamic State – it was
to be expected given their demonstrated hawkish bent – but that they go on to
describe a strategy which is perfectly coherent standing on its own. What the
editors do, is tell how different this strategy is from what they would have designed,
and thus call the President's strategy incoherent because it differs from their
own. But because theirs has no endgame, unlike that of the President which has
one, the bottom line remains that Obama's strategy is coherent, and theirs is
not.
Now this question: what trick do they use that allows them
to turn reality upside down, and go from there to design a scheme that has
never worked, and has no chance of ever working? Here is the trick: “U.S. officials
have described the danger in hair-curling terms.” It is the Jewish use of
adjectives – such as 'hair curling terms' – to admonish the readers that they
must not stop here and think because this is dogma so absolute, to question it
would be like questioning God Himself. Their message to all is this: Swallow it
whole and keep reading.
You still want to know what it is that has curled their
hair, and they tell you it is that the forces of the Islamic State threaten Lebanon , Turkey
and Jordan .
And “with hundreds of Western recruits, they have the ambition and capability
to launch attacks against targets in Europe and the United States .” In light of all
this, what is the President's strategy in their view? It is that “the measures
ordered by Mr. Obama are not intended to defeat the Islamic State.” And this,
they say, is not as good as their own which they describe as follows: “It's
past time for Mr. Obama to set aside a policy that is both minimalist and
unrealistic.”
But what, in concrete terms, is the difference between the
two strategies? The difference is that the Jewish inspired strategy of the
Washington Post would make America
cast a wide net by arming everyone, and taking the lead charging against the
forces of the Islamic State. Opposed to this, is the strategy of the White
House which recognizes the reality that the Islamic State is first and foremost
an Iraqi responsibility. If America
will be threatened at the end of the line, it should not panic now or go over
the heads of those who are threatened more immediately such as Iraq , Lebanon ,
Turkey , Jordan and the
Europeans – to do the work they will not do for themselves. America must
never again do that, and be forced to own what gets broken while they move on
with their lives free of any responsibility.
And a powerful lesson exists for all to see. In fact, there
is mention in the Greg Miller article that: The launching of U.S. airstrikes
has raised questions as to whether the bombings will elevate the status of the
Islamic State among jihadists. Also, the “U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan
and elsewhere have served as rallying cries against the United States .”
And while Obama was careful to depict the strikes as part of
a humanitarian mission, they triggered widespread calls for retaliation. In
fact, “A prominent figure on a jihadist forum wrote that the strikes should
prompt fighters to unite against the United
States : 'the mujahideen must strike in their own home, America , to
discipline it and its criminal soldiers.'”
The Greg Miller article goes on to say that “the group has
not been linked to any known plot against the United States .” But there are
indications it has aspirations for attacks on America . It is that so far, 100
Americans have traveled to Syria
or tried to. Among them was a Florida resident
who detonated a suicide bomb in Syria .
He was not linked to the group, but as many as a dozen Americans are.