To seem like looking ahead thus avoid being accused of
looking backward, the editors of the Wall Street Journal found a novel way to
look straight ahead while in reality looking backward. They did it in their piece:
“Islamic State on the run?” which also came under the subtitle: “Obama's upbeat
progress report overlooks a few details.” It was published in the Journal on
July 8, 2015.
Their beef this time has to do with what President Obama
said he did to the ISIS people, and what he
plans to do to them next. The editors go on to say that “these promises are
encouraging if belated, but this strategic summary is not the whole truth,”
anyway. And they explain that the number of air strikes Obama conducted on ISIS is but a fraction of the number of sorties that
President Clinton ordered in Kosovo. Do these editors say there is a difference
between the two situations? Do they say what the differences, if any, might be?
The answer to both questions is no, they don't.
Instead, they explain why they maintain that position. They
say (1) that the “Islamic State continues to attract recruits and expands.” To
the editors, this means “the new jihadis must not think ISIS
is losing. The trouble is that they do not explain how they came to understand
what goes on inside the head of a suicide bomber.” But they try to do so, and
thus:
(2) They take on the President who said: “ideologies are not
defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas.” No, say the editors;
it's the other way around: “ISIS cannot be
defeated ideologically unless it is humiliated and defeated militarily.” The
mistake the editors make here is that they assume all jihadis are adventure
seekers when in reality, most are devotees to the religion. And so, they
volunteer to defend it the more that they see it get beaten up by foreigners.
(3) They do not like the Obama approach of working with
others to solve problems that concern the United States as well as those
others. Among the latter, the editors mention the United Nations and Russia 's
President Vladimir Putin as if to signal the disdain they have for those
parties. Well, the editors seem to conveniently forget that every time the U.S. has worked
with allies – except when it did with Arab allies while Bush 41 was President –
it got shafted by those allies. Remember what happened in Korea , Vietnam ,
Iraq and Afghanistan ?
They all abandoned America
when they could no longer draw propaganda benefits for themselves.
(4) The editors object to Obama saying that ISIS has “filled
the void” because they believe that it is “his own ill-advised retreat from Iraq
which created that void.” Well, these editors fail to notice there are many
places in the world where America
did not poke its nose, and where they are doing well. By contrast, everywhere America chose to meddle without the consent of
the people most affect, America
messed things up big time.
(5) Now they play prophets. Look at this: “His nuclear
diplomacy with Iran promises to make matters worse … Iran will use the money it
gains from sanctions relief and arm and fund its proxies … tempting Sunni
states to respond in kind.” Well, these are the same people who advised Bush 43
that when he invades Iraq , America 's
soldiers will be greeted with flowers and kisses. They also advised him that if
he disbanded the Iraqi army, the United States will be able to
American-train a much better Iraqi army. He disbanded the Iraqi army, America got
shafted big time, and those who advised him blamed it all on him. What a
sucker!
(6) They seem to exude confidence playing the “what if”
game. The following is a good example. They first mention: “Mr. Obama concluded
by observing that the U.S.
has faced 'more formidable challenges'” in the past. And so they respond: “Yes
it has, especially when emerging threats were left to fester by Presidents who
lacked the political will to confront them.” And they draw the parallel: “By
continuing to underrate the threat of Islamic radicalism, Mr. Obama risks
repeating that history.”