Well, the first objective occurred; as for the second, the tourist industry may have reeled for a few days, but it already is bouncing back; the third objective was a total failure, for far from surrendering, France, epitomized by the determination of its Socialist President, François Hollande, has been hammering the terror network as it hasn’t been hammered since the days when there were US ground forces in Iraq. The French have conducted raids on hundreds of locations, arrested or detained a significant number of terrorists, suspected terrorists, or sympathizers; and have used the French Air Force to inflict serious injury to ISIS targets in Syria.
Several observers have wondered aloud how the French were able to pulverize an ISIS headquarters and training center – given that the United States has been bombing ISIS since September 2014, shouldn’t its headquarters and training centers have been pulverized months ago? But little does that matter, for it apparently has been pulverized, thanks to the French. The atrocity in Paris did not terrorize France into submission or indifference; on the contrary, it has been been a more vigorous warrior against the Islamic radicals than ever.
Similarly, Vladimir Putin reacted to the terrorist bombing of a Russian airliner and all its occupants by bombing ISIS targets that the American-led assault has spared. When ISIS burned alive a captured Jordanian, Jordan reacted by launching several airstrikes.
The response of the French President is powerful, effective and inspiring – and the response of the American President has been weak, confused, and equivocating. He flashed far more anger at Republican critics or the news media for asking unwelcome questions than he ever has against terrorists themselves. The President probably was embarrassed, for mere hours before the assault on Paris, the President had declared ISIS “contained.” At least he didn’t blame it on a video.
But as horrible as the Paris attacks were, they weren’t horrible enough to make President Obama change his mind or change his course or change his “strategy” to fight ISIS – whatever it is at any given moment. And the three Democrats running for President are about equally as unconcerned. They won’t employ the term “radical Islam.” They want to accept thousands of refugees from Syria – and angrily lash out at anyone who has a different view; and they believe that “climate change” is a bigger threat than ISIS.
Well, the President may have changed a little: according to The New York Times, the US destroyed a convoy of ISIS trucks transporting crude oil. Why is this news? Well, the Times reports it was the first time we have struck one of those convoys. How less powerful would ISIS be if we had been pounding its headquarters and training centers and oil convoys since September 2014? Or if we had been doing so months earlier, when the President of Iraq begged us to, or if the President had left a few thousand ground forces in Iraq in 2011? He still refuses to commit ground forces. Yes, the Arab powers should step up and fight ISIS with their own armies – after all, it is their fight; but they also are the natural places that should be accepting refugees. Ideally, refugees are given shelter, protection or asylum on a temporary basis, until it is safe to return to their homeland. They are not seeking the permanent home the President wishes to provide.
After the Paris terrorism, the President released five more detainees from Guantanamo. Why, he even declares that the mere existence of Guantanamo causes Muslims to hate America. We wonder: if detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo somehow justifies hatred of America – how come our drone war doesn’t? It is illogical that imprisoning terrorists would provoke hatred, but killing them does not. But, given that the President lacks a strategy to fight ISIS, it shouldn’t surprise us that he also lacks rationality.