8/12/2009

Let's Be the Strong Horse




Evidently, the United States is no longer engaged in (i) a War on Terror, (ii) a War Against Islamic Extremists, (iii) fighting jihadists, or (iv) a global war. Last Thursday, President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, took all of these terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Brennan said that, “The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism’”. The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said that the administration is using is that the U.S is “at war with al Qaeda.” The President himself has not used the term “War on Terror” in public since January 23. Evidently, the Obama Administration does not believe that other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, are worth fighting.

Apparently, therefore, it’s okay with Mr. Obama if black market cigarette smuggling continues in North Carolina and the proceeds are used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah cells that may be operating in the United States. It is bad enough that these two Iranian controlled and funded terrorist organizations actively engage in armed conflict on a daily basis against one of our closest allies, Israel, but the fact that the President does not feel that they pose an enormous threat to the security of the American people is beyond troubling.

Mr. Brennan continued with his politically correct nonsense by saying that it is wrongheaded to continue to claim that we are fighting “jihadists” because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” In Western parlance, the term “jihad” had universally meant holy war. It wasn’t until the politically correct victimization crowd, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), claimed otherwise. (Let’s not forget that CAIR itself is a group that supports terrorism. It was formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and it was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.)

Mr. Brennan said that he and the President lamented “inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness” surrounding the national security debate and said that Mr. Obama has views that are “nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.” This, of course, is just further proof that President Obama does not understand the nature of the threat that we face from Islamic extremists, regardless of the organization that they belong to. There is no nuance needed in the goal of defeating those who would try to kill us or subjugate in an effort to restore the caliphate.

As Osama bin-Laden said, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." Therefore, it would seem to make sense for the members of the Obama Administration to spend time acting like we are, in fact, the strong horse, as opposed to talking about nuance and political correctness. (I must give the President for the continued use of the Predator drones in Pakistan. This program, started by the Bush Administration, has been very successful. So much so that some on the left want it to stop. Hopefully, this helps send that message to the terrorists that you can run, but you can’t hind.)

The goal of US foreign policy should be the security of the American people. It should not be to try to have the United States be liked around the world. As a matter of fact, sometimes, it is better to be feared than liked. I don’t think that the President knows what it means to be the strong horse. Unfortunately, that endangers us all.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So are you saying we should treat the tobacco fields of NC like we treat the poppy fields of Afghanistan?

Even calling it a war with al-qaeda is wrong. Most of the fighting last year was with taliban. So who we are at war with in Afghanistan: taliban, afghanistan itself, who the hell knows.

You know, if you talk about North Carolina and 'better to be feared...' in the same post you are going to get yourself labeled a 'Mayberry Machiavelli.'

Anonymous said...

So are you saying we should treat the tobacco fields of NC like we treat the poppy fields of Afghanistan?

Even calling it a war with al-qaeda is wrong. Most of the fighting last year was with taliban. So who we are at war with in Afghanistan: taliban, afghanistan itself, who the hell knows.

You know, if you talk about North Carolina and 'better to be feared...' in the same post you are going to get yourself labeled a 'Mayberry Machiavelli.'

Steven L. Baerson said...

Last time I checked, growing tobacco was legal. It is the smuggling that causes the problems.