Perspectives: Hindsight Reveals Our Enemy and It’s Aims and Obama’s Failure to Be Effective in the Fight

Posted by Tina

A witness told investigators that Mateen had been a devotee of videos featuring the late al-Qaeda firebrand Anwar al-Awlaki — a jihadist who, before finally being killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, mysteriously slipped through the FBI’s net several times over the years, beginning with his apparently conspiratorial meetings with some of the 9/11 suicide hijackers – Andrew McCarthy

The above came from an article derived from a speech by Andrew McCarthy, National Review, “Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies.” As I read through it I suddenly felt compelled to revisit the speech delivered before Congress by George W. Bush following 911. The two speeches both point to the need to clearly identify the enemy and create an effective strategy. They point to the necessity of an unbending and pointed resolve to pursue this enemy and determine who is “with us” and who is “against us.”

The exit of president Bush from the world stage in 2008 ushered in a new approach to the Islamic terrorist threat. Bush handed the baton to his predecessor having nearly decimated al Qaeda and a stable Middle East. The arrival of president Obama brought with it many changes. What has happened since his arrival in our approach to this vile enemy of freedom and humanity, in the lexicon, and in the explosion of politically correct animosity and derision aimed at fellow Americans has been stunning. I am sickened in particular at the way our government has played into the hands of the enemy over the last seven years. While our leaders and their supporters hand-wring over words that specifically and correctly describe our enemy, our enemy has grown in power, influence and strength exactly as Bush described it would if we did not act and act decisively with strength and undying resolve following 911.

I strongly encourage you read both speeches for context, McCarthy first followed by Bush’s speech.
Here’s a bit of McCarthy:

While there are various ways of interpreting Islam, many of them benign and reformist, sharia supremacism is not so much a religion as a radical political ideology with a religious veneer. It does not recognize a division between mosque and state, or between spiritual and political or civic spheres of life. In this aggressive, fundamentalist construction of Islam, the mosque is not a mere “house of worship” where believers gather strictly “to pray.” Far from it. The mosque is the political and ideological center of what, in the West, is an anti-assimilationist movement bent on conquest, not prayerful pluralism.

Hassan al-Bannah, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential, most sophisticated sharia-supremacist movement, taught a farsighted form of ground-up revolution. It would plant its flag and grow outward in enclaves, small towns, and — eventually — big cities, districts, counties, states, provinces, and countries across the globe.

And where would it plant its flag in every place it sought conquest? Bannah instructed that the mosque and its companion Islamic community center would be “the axis of the movement” wherever the movement took root.

Andrew McCarthy prosecuted the original World Trade Center truck bomb case. His knowledge and understanding of our enemy is both vast and insightful. The following is an excerpt from the transcript of Bush’s speech following 911:

The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking “Why do they hate us?”

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We’re not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, “How will we fight and win this war?”

We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

Are the people around the world that favor an appeasing approach with us or are they against us?

Are those that cry Xenophobia with us or against us?

Have the terrorists advanced their aims in the last seven years?

Are they winning their war against the West and western values?

Are we in the west better off today than we were at the end of the Bush presidency?

The answers to those questions are obvious and disturbing. The enemy has advanced it’s goals and we are not better off.

Hillary is an extension of the Obama administration, an administration that has failed to effectively fight and keep us safe. She should never be president.

This entry was posted in Military, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Perspectives: Hindsight Reveals Our Enemy and It’s Aims and Obama’s Failure to Be Effective in the Fight

  1. Chris says:

    Tina: ” Bush handed the baton to his predecessor having nearly decimated al Qaeda and a stable Middle East.”

    No.

    http://the hill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/243853-jeb-bush-is-wrong-iraq-was-not-stable-before-obama

    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/may/28/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-says-isis-didnt-exist-when-my-brother-was/

  2. bob says:

    I hope all of you will never forget that not only was Mateen a Democrat, he was a Hillary supporter.

  3. Tina says:

    Nice try.

    Compared to Iraq today, after eight years of Obama, Hillary and Kerry, Iraq was stable as was the rest of the Middle East! Obama has managed to create chaos and unrest in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq.

    November 2015, The Week:

    From the initial emergence of ISIS, President Obama has found himself consistently behind the curve. As the group began seizing territory in western Iraq in late 2013 and early 2014, Obama scoffed at the idea that ISIS represented a threat, comparing them to “jayvees” suiting up against the Los Angeles Lakers. As the terror group spread its tentacles across Iraq and Syria, sacking Mosul and seizing Raqqa, the White House insisted that the Iraqis could handle ISIS. When ISIS released videos of “Jihadi John” butchering American journalists and other hostages in August 2014, Obama admitted that his administration had no specific policy to deal with the terrorist quasi-state. It took another few weeks for Obama to roll out his strategy that would fulfill his pledge to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS.

    That strategy comprised three elements. First, airstrikes against ISIS would start rolling back their gains, especially in Iraq. Next, the Obama administration pledged to train Iraqi forces — including the Sunni tribes betrayed by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011 — and arm Kurds. Finally, the U.S. would train Syrian moderates to dislodge ISIS from its key strongholds, an effort which The New York Times noted might take as long as three years.

    “What I want people to understand is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum” of ISIS, Obama said on Meet the Press at the time. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities; we’re going to shrink the territory that they control; and, ultimately, we’re going to defeat them.”

    More than 14 months later, the strategy has failed in all three elements. The territory held by ISIS has not appreciably declined, and may have expanded. ISIS now threatens Aleppo in Syria, and has seized Palmyra, Hatra, and Nimrud. The Iraqi army still has yet to push ISIS off of any significant territory for long, even with Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in the lead. And the U.S. effort to train Syrian moderates to fight the tens of thousands of ISIS militants ended up costing $500 million to train just 60 fighters. More than 50 were killed before the White House ended the program in humiliation.

    Now, ISIS has shifted its focus from territorial gains and genocide to international terrorism. The crash of a chartered Metrojet aircraft in the Sinai was an ISIS operation conducted by infiltration of Egypt’s airport in Sharm el-Sheikh, a popular tourist spot for European travelers. ISIS leadership also took credit for a terrorist attack in Beirut, although Lebanese officials still dispute that account.

    Yet last Friday morning, ABC News aired an interview between George Stephanopoulos and President Obama in which the president claimed credit for having “contained” ISIS. When Stephanpoulos noted that “ISIS is gaining strength,” Obama objected. “Well, no, I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them.” That aired less than 12 hours before ISIS launched the Mumbai-style terrorist operation in Paris that left scores dead and hundreds injured.

    Given that track record, one might have expected Obama to offer a little more humble approach to questions about the efficacy of his ISIS strategy on Monday. Instead, at a press conference during the G-20 meeting in Turkey, Obama refused to entertain any notion that he had failed, or that there might be alternatives to his plan. He accused his critics of “pop[ping] off” without any reasonable alternatives, and insisted that he had never underestimated ISIS. That led to a very uncomfortable moment when CNN’s Jim Acosta reminded Obama that “this is an organization that you once described as a JV team,” and asked how Obama could possibly describe them as “contained.”

    With evident exasperation, Obama admitted that “we can retake territory,” but he chooses not to do so. Instead, Obama insisted that he plans to follow the same strategy put in place 14 months ago, even though it clearly has failed to destroy, degrade, or even contain ISIS. “We are going to continue to pursue the strategy that has the best chance of working,” Obama said with evident contempt, “even though it does not offer the satisfaction, I guess, of a neat headline or an immediate resolution.”

    Immediate? How about any indication of progress? Even Obama’s key ally on Capitol Hill, ranking Senate Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein, declared Obama’s strategy a failure on Saturday. “It has become clear that limited airstrikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies,” Feinstein wrote in a sharply worded rebuke to Obama. “This is a war that affects us all, and it’s time we take real action to confront these monsters who target innocent civilians.‎”

    The media took notice of Obama’s contempt almost immediately on Monday, as well as his lack of answers. Acosta’s CNN colleague Elise Labott tweeted that the Monday presser had gone “very badly for POTUS,” and that the world was looking for a leader determined to fight ISIS rather than offer defensiveness over his failing policy. ABC’s Jon Karl noted that Obama was determined to argue that his strategy was working, but “that’s a tough case to make after Paris.”

    The media has finally begun to notice that Obama’s strategy has failed, and that Obama himself refuses to acknowledge it, but … what took so long? Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz chalks it up in part to a short attention span. “The question now is whether the journalistic uproar over the scourge of terrorism will last more than a week or two,” Kurtz writes, “or whether a business notorious for its short attention span will simply move on to other matters.”

    National Review:

    >blockquote>Administration policy has fanned the rebellion in Syria and kept it going for three full years, while doing nothing to bring it to a successful close. Sometimes the administration has explicitly tried to keep the rebels in a stalemate with Assad; Secretary of State Kerry said that it was his policy to do just that, in order to promote negotiations and “peace.” The result, so obvious as to make that statement a shameless Orwellianism, has been to keep the war dragging on.

    This has provided the hothouse for the growth of the extremist Islamic State. In due course, it spilled over from Syria into Iraq, and it has issued threats against the American homeland. The Obama-Kerry policy has also made for the more than 190,000 deaths in Syria, 500,000 wounded, and 8 million refugees (more than 2 million abroad, 6 million inside Syria) — this, out of a population of about 22 million. It is hard to imagine a policy more irresponsible, or worse from a moral standpoint. Yet it has been the long-standing policy of Obama and Kerry — and it was Secretary of State Clinton’s, too, until her last weeks in office, when she finally seemed to be getting serious, only to have her new plans thrown out by Kerry. Fanning a rebellion just up to the point where the country is bleeding continuously — what could be more horrible? (continues)

    How can you not see what is right in front of your own eyes?

    • Libby says:

      Is this supposed to distract from the INA’s announcement that they have taken back Falluja, after a long month of campaigning we were to distracted to notice.

      Distracted by what, you ask?

      Barf.

  4. Chris says:

    So what would you do differently, Tina? (Please answer without using the vague phrase “identify the enemy clearly.”)

    • Libby says:

      Or we could just, rightfully, infer that she means to brand all adherents of the faith as terrorists.

      I can see no point in dancing around this.

    • Tina says:

      We have allies in the Middle East that are dismayed by what has happened under Obama. We need to repair the damage and see to what degree they would be willing to assist us once/as a strategy is developed. There are several things to consider when making plans. We need to decimate financing and recruiting capabilities. Some of that is being done now…Russia took the lead. We need to do much more. It’s insane that we allow their internet recruiting to go unanswered and unchallenged. Tech experts should have some ideas. We can step up counter-recruiting efforts and it will work if we become the strong horse.

      We need to move against ISIS to free Iraq and Libya working with moderate groups: the peshmerga, Sunni tribes, the Free Syrian Army, and elements of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) not compromised by Iran’s Quds Force. We need a few more troops including special forces and logistical and intelligence operators. We need to change the rules of engagement! We should establish a small base of operations. Anbar Province has been suggested. We need to increase support and coordination with the Free Syrian Army. We have special forces teams with experience that are not being tapped. SEAL Team Six and Delta Force are skilled at targeting networks and gathering intelligence by interrogating prisoners and scooping up computers and documents. Pushing ISIS back into Syria would be a big step. Turkey might be willing to help.

      We need to keep Gitmo open, stop letting dangerous killers go, and again capture fighters to gather intelligence. We need to use military tribunals when necessary…this is war not civil criminality. Our enemies do not recognize nor respect our civil laws or autonomy.

      We need to re-establish international ties and cooperation and we can do that with a good strategy and a leader with a strong commitment. We need to negotiate with wealthy Middle Eastern leaders to contribute (greatly) to the funding required to decimate this menace. We need to work diplomatically to bring stability where we can. We need to support factions that want freedom and democratic governments. I know there’s strong opposition to nation building. We should be careful not to interfere but at the same time we should not shy away from encouraging democratic governments and support for human rights.

      We need to secure our borders and mend our broken immigration system. The border requires a wall in those areas where citizens are being harmed and threatened. We can negotiate with Mexico to build it. We need to use smarts and enforcement effectively. Could we use seismic equipment to find tunneling operations? Could we use electric fencing to better discourage entry? Could we change our redistribution policies to discourage entry? Can we shame the leadership in Mexico for the state of their poor in the areas of employment, healthcare and education? Can we demand reimbursement for incarcerated criminal they won’t take back?

      Increased stability in the world would make many problems go away or less intense. Improved economic conditions and winning in the fight against ISIS are paramount to this end. A clear hopeful and unifying message must come from the leadership. We have had eight years of divisive language that is not only destructive but based on politics rather than reality. A message that inspires all people to focus on improving their own conditions and prosperity would be possible in a growing economy. When individuals are strong the “collective” grows in strength and the opportunity for peace to break out grows. When people are prosperous they are also, for the most part, very generous. This state, or atmosphere, is necessary if we are ever going to discourage the hateful messaging of terrorists.

      I’m not an expert in these matters but I can see that what we have done in the last almost eight years has been disastrous in every area I’ve discussed. I think the world looks to the US to lead the way. I don’t think we can step off that stage and pretend this will go away on its own. I don’t think we can depend on other countries to lead for various reasons not the least of which is sheer size, strength, and capability. England is approximately the size of Alabama. The EU is a conglomerate of nations without a common military other than NATO which we are already a part. Israel would be met with international condemnation because of the lefts insane bigoted interpretation for their intentions and right to exist. The UN is a useless corrupt organization that issues meaningless resolutions that are largely ignored.

      Leadership. Hillary is not fit to be our Commander-in-Chief. She has permanently tarnished herself in terms of transparency, competence, and trustworthiness. She is compromised in terms of possible quid pro quo agreements with corporate and political entities in the ME. She is compromised because of her involvement in the Iran deal. Iran is a known terrorist sponsor. We had no business making a deal with Iran. It was under her watch that our relationship with Russia has deteriorated, allowing (or pushing) Russia to move against free nations and our interests and toward the interests of our enemies.

      Trump is not a political animal. He is a master negotiator, important in getting Congress to work together and important in working with allies. He delegates and relies on the expertise of others. He is comfortable working through problems and making difficult decisions. He loves America and wants to see people and America prosper again.

      He will make mistakes…what alternative is there that is not compromised, living under a cloud of criminality, and discredited?

      • Libby says:

        “We need to move against ISIS to free Iraq and Libya working with moderate groups.”

        We are. You simply refuse to believe it. Or, you have to lie about it to make a case for The ELE. Or, you parrot The ELE, making his own feeble case.

        It is a fact that the OA has deported more individuals than the BA. You simply refuse to believe it … or, deliberately lie about it, so you can make things out to be worse than they are.

        Either way, you are not persuasive.

  5. Peggy says:

    This should be an interesting hearing to watch and even more so since it will be chaired by Ted Cruz.

    Ted Cruz to Hold Hearing on Cover-up of Islamic Terror by Obama Administration:

    “Next Tuesday, June 28, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, will conduct a hearing investigating the willful blindness on the part of the relevant law enforcement agencies to domestic Islamic terror networks. The subject of the hearing is “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

    This hearing will likely focus on which figures within the federal government worked to squelch any research connecting the dots between local Muslim Brotherhood officials, these individual terrorists, and foreign terror networks. Senators on the committee now have an opportunity to expose the Muslim Brotherhood influence within DHS and the FBI, their invidious “Countering Violent Extremism” Agenda, and their hand in covering up counter-terrorism investigations. They can demonstrate how the federal government has hamstrung local law enforcement by refusing to cooperate and share information regarding jihadists living in their communities.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/ted-cruz-to-hold-hearing-on-coverup-of-islamic-terror-by-obama-administration#sthash.Psg6kVlV.dpuf

  6. Tina says:

    No Libby although it could be said that your posting about success in Falluga might be an attempt by you to distract from the seven previous years of failure.

    Daily Beast:

    The CIA says the so-called Islamic State is undiminished by almost two years of war, and will step up terrorist attacks worldwide as it loses territory in Iraq and Syria.

    Calling ISIS a “formidable, resilient” enemy, CIA director John Brennan said the group will likely switch to guerrilla tactics as it is driven off the battlefield and will send more of its Western operatives to attack Europe and beyond, while using social media to groom future lone wolves like U.S.-born Omar Mateen, 29, who killed 49 people Sunday in Orlando.

    “Our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee in grim testimony Thursday, just days after the gay nightclub attack, apparently inspired by ISIS.

    We’ve been doing the air strike dance for two long years without progress in Syria.

    And remember Iraq, deemed the “stupid war” by Obama (Great diplomacy there) was abandoned and now:

    The humanitarian crisis in Iraq has been dubbed one of the world’s worst by the UN.

    Since the beginning of the present conflict in 2014, more than 3.4 million people have been internally displaced and 2.6 million have fled Iraq.

    You should be barfing. You undermined our efforts under Bush and have had little to nothing to say for almost eight years…except to put all the blame for everything that’s happened since Obama took office on his predecessor…pathetic, even for you.

    Leaders make mistakes. This is a very difficult enemy to combat. Obama would have had my support on the war had he followed through and listened to advisers to develop a strong, multi-pronged strategy. Instead he and Hillary meddled and fiddled and made a big fat mess. We have gained nothing. Think of it…nothing! There is much we have lost. That doesn’t make me happy or proud.

    We have a chance in November to change course. I bring this up because it would be a terrible mistake to put the woman who brought us Benghazi (and all of the lies surrounding Benghazi) and displayed such poor judgement and recklessness when she chose to use a private email server. The people need to be informed and reminded. I will do my part.

    • Libby says:

      Just so long as you stick to the facts (there are plenty) and eschew the baseless innuendo to which Peggy is susceptible.

      You may or may not have noticed that no one around here is exerting themselves on behalf of poor Hils, but if you expect to persuade anybody that The ELE is a viable alternative, you’re going to have to step up your game considerably. Any fanciful hyperbole you present we can match with something right out of the man’s mouth.

  7. J. Soden says:

    It’s become almost funny to see how many gyrations da prez goes through when his agenda gets a smackdown. Obumble’s legacy of FAILURE at almost everything he’s done is secure.
    Tripling our national debt has been his only success – if you can call that a success . . . .

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Spot on Tina! The usual gang of nitwit progressive nitpicks — whose only daily aim is to bring Tina and Jack down — fire away with inane blanks. One wonders why Chris et. al. has nothing better to do with their lives other than continue make specious attacks on Post Scripts.

    Let us take a good, fierce look– Chris et. al. FEAR YOU! These idiots — who hate conservatives, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights — think Jack and Tina are dangerous.

    It is enough to make one have an ice cold glass of lemonade and take a nice sun bath nap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.