 | | | | | | | | | Administration Can't Define Victory
On September 11th, with radical Islamic terrorism growing in strength, the Obama administration brushed off a very serious question: What does victory look like against ISIS? Perhaps they should work harder to define their goals and strategy, rather than hiding behind snarky excuses.
I said that Obama wouldn't use the word "victory" in his speech Wednesday when he addressed the growing threat of ISIS. I was correct. So the media asked Obama's press secretary Josh Earnest the next day: "What does victory look like here? I mean, you've talked about destroying ISIL. I honestly don't know what that means. What does it mean?" Earnest's response: "I didn't bring my Webster's dictionary with me up here."
Seriously? This reporter asked a very legitimate question about a very serious subject, and yet this is all the administration can come up with? This is absurd. Earnest did then go on to try and explain how the president wants to destroy ISIS, but it still remains unclear as to what exactly "mission accomplish" looks like.
The question is not out-of-line. Accomplishing goals, whether at work or on the field of battle, requires a measurement of success. This administration doesn't seem so interested in success or victory so much as political platitudes and half-measures. |
|
| |
|
  |
|
| Don't Call It "War"
A profound revelation from the attacks of September 11th was the idea that the terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. Yet this administration remains reluctant to use the word "war" to describe its actions against radical Islamic terrorists. The latest example of this reluctance is Secretary of State John Kerry. He was asked whether or not he would characterize our plans to "defeat" and "destroy" ISIS as "war." Kerry's answer ? "I think that's the wrong terminology. What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counter-terrorism operation. And it's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so.
The fact is, it's a major counter-terrorism operation that will have many different moving parts." So we have a "major counter-terrorism operation." Add that to the list along with "overseas contingency operations," " kinetic military action," "man-caused disasters," and "workplace violence." And we can't forget that ISIS - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - is neither Islamic nor seeking to be a state. That's according to our president's speech this week.
Are you noticing a pattern here? Softening the language hasn't done us any good in achieving peace and stability. In fact, the lack of clarity has only confused our allies and emboldened our enemies.
|
|
| |
|
 |
| | | | | | | |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment