A commentary from Cumberland Advisors
In
the wake of the beheading of Steven Foley and the subsequent admission
of Hamas that they kidnapped and murdered the three Israeli teenagers,
headlines abound about the risk posed by radical Islam. The Western
world has witnessed murder and massacre in this gruesome form.
Reaction worldwide is mixed but is more galvanized in America. The video of American journalist Brigitte Gabriel’s intense answer
to a question posed at a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation is
capturing an American mood. We expect politicians be observant of this
mood change. We further expect that will translate into action. In the Obama White house it already is changing the policy.
A dramatic headline was in the weekend edition of USA Today.
It appeared across the entire front page: “How dangerous is Islamic
State?” The subtitle was “Returning Western militants pose threat to
homeland.”
While
the US president, British prime minister, and other authorities are
intent on identifying the single executioner in the Foley beheading, the
thoughtful Western world is focused on the 10-15% of the Islamic world that
is radicalized and cheering the results of activities perpetrated by
organizations such as Hamas, Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and others of the
same ilk. The question: can Western governments and leaders organize
themselves and establish that the war is with terrorists and their
groups, and not with “terror” as imprecisely expressed by President
Bush? Organizations like al-Qaeda or ISIL have members, supporters, and
financial sources. They are out to kill Americans and our allies in any
manner they can. Can there be a sustained action plan to be launched by Western governments.
Those
governments have to confront several issues. The first, as Ms. Gabriel
outlined, is the notion of “political correctness.” How do we launch a
targeted and effective attack on radical Islamic groups that condone violence
and death while maintaining respectful and cordial relations with the
more peaceful Islamic elements that compose the majority? Gabriel cites
percentages throughout history, noting how the majority in almost all
of history was peaceful, yet the radical minority, time and time
again, wrought death and destruction. She enumerated case study after
case study. It is not important that her percentage estimates are
correct. The point is that the militant minority has often been
substantial enough to do material and ongoing harm. Therefore, it defines the enemy.
We
are at war with an enemy. Our political leadership must now change.
Beheadings and public assassinations may galvanize citizens and may mark
an inflection point.
I
would expect our president and the Democratic and Republican houses in
our national legislature to unite on this issue. In order for them to do
that, there must be action from the president. He has established
himself for years as a reluctant and pacifist warrior. He has
attempted dialogue and delivered rhetoric for almost six of the eight
years he will spend in office. He has attempted to maneuver in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world. His policies of slow and soft have not worked.
Now
he has a chance to salvage his presidency and career. It will require
him to change the way he presents himself to the US and the world and
then to take action. One recommended action would be to convene a joint session
of Congress in order to outline a program that would establish new and
improved levels of surveillance and precision technologies that will let
the military and intelligence communities augment and intensify their
work. He must ask Congress to fund it. He can declare the current
situation a state of emergency and ask Congress to ratify it. He can
point to 9/11 as a failure to act preemptively. He can point to the
facts as we now know them about Islamic State’s notorious behavior and
say that this is an enemy, even if it’s not a traditional country.
We
have to define this enemy not by its borders but by its activist
members, its intellectual leaders, its financing sources and its
supporters. We must consider them to be enemies opposing us in a state
of war. When we are in a state of war, it is kill or be killed, shoot
or be shot. We know what happens when we wait. We have learned that the
hard way, from 9/11 through to the beheading of James Foley.
My
view is that if the president took this stand and announced an
inflection change, he would get overwhelming bipartisan support in the
country. No Congressman or Senator could dare go home to his
constituency having supported a path of silence or passivism. A
public beheading of a journalist is sufficient evidence worldwide. In
other countries there would be a similar response.
There
would be issues involved with political correctness. How to respect the
sensitivities of the peaceful portions in the Muslim world? How can we
demonstrate our ongoing respect for them at the same time we are attempting to deal decisive military blows to those extremists who have declared themselves our mortal enemies?This Bloomberg article,
which focuses on one Muslim-dominated London neighborhood that contains
both peaceful and radical elements, paints the issues in sharp relief.
History
suggests that we often fail to make such distinctions well. In WWII,
Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized an executive order to relocate Japanese
American citizens to internment camps. Their properties were
appropriated for far below market value, and they were imprisoned
during the war, even as many Japanese Americans helped the American war
effort. Similar instances can be found throughout history. The nature of
sorting out the militant minority from the peaceful majority is a complex political and military problem. It is not something we human beings have done well.
Israel,
in the defense of its territory and in an attempt to silence ongoing
rocket attacks from Gaza, faces the difficulty of distinguishing between
innocent civilians and Hamas militants. Hamas has only one tool to
further its own political power. That is murder and mayhem. Israel then
has to deal with the hiding of rockets in schools and hospitals. It has
to deal with the kidnapping and murder of teenagers by Hamas. What is it
to do? How long can a nation under attack choose to remain passive? At what point does it reach an inflection point and declare that this ongoing rocket fire must stop?
The
leadership of Israel has decided that the inflection point has come. It
made that declaration. Israel must now persist until its mission is
completed. That is not a pretty picture. The US and the rest of the
Western world who care about the long-term safety and security of
their populations, their allies, and their activities must view radical
jihadist Islam in this context. That means our target is not just one
person who beheaded an American journalist. Our target may be
hundreds, thousands, and maybe millions who are parts of organizations
that help maneuver, shoot, kill, fund, assist, and give political
support. A US declaration of war on Islamic State is now called for.
I
admit that this is a controversial statement to make. I say it as an
American citizen who at one point wore an army uniform and who walked
with colleagues out of the World Trade Center on 9/11. I have a bias,
and I admit it. It is time for change in American policy. The time is now. Food for thought on Labor day weekend?
No comments:
Post a Comment