To call this a “national security” strategy is nothing short of farce.
Hillary Clinton’s Thursday night acceptance speech for the Democrat nomination for president in Philadelphia made it clear that a Clinton administration would mean nothing more or less than four more years of Barack Obama, and her proposed approach to ISIS is no different.
During her acceptance speech Clinton told those in attendance “I’ve laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS.”
Continuing, she said, “We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won’t be easy or quick, but make no mistake – we will prevail.”
Is she kidding? How in the world is this different than the approach to the insurgency that President Obama has implemented since he called ISIS the “JV team” or claimed that the threat was “contained,” completely contrary to the nightmare through which the West is currently living?
The sad truth is that, despite thousands of United States airstrikes, despite giving as much cover as possible to an Iraqi army that has only recently been able to retake Fallujah, and trying tepidly to fight online radicalization attempts and stop attacks before they happen, both the United States and Europe remain under siege from a pervasive jihadist threat unlike any other seen in modern history.
Furthermore, promising that your proposed ISIS strategy “won’t be quick” is nothing short of callous in light of the constant threat of ISIS-inspired jihadist attacks on American soil.
To call this anything close to a “national security” strategy uses the term loosely and irresponsibly.
Now, to be fair, if those airstrikes were to actually to employ the kind of overwhelming force necessary to actually soften the targets, if those local forces included secular forces like the Kurds, Northern Iraqi Christian militias and secular regional powers like Egypt rather than a rapidly-Islamizing Turkey and other such regional powers, if that intelligence surge were to actually include the surveillance of radically-affiliated mosques, then that would at least be a step in the right direction.
However, it’s highly unlikely that’s what Clinton meant in her remarks. Just a hunch.
The fact of the matter is that as long as the west remains under siege from a multinational jihadist threat that has proven itself capable of executing sporadic and deadly terror attacks and can radicalize and recruit militants on scales never seen before, four more years of “JV team” is only going to mean more genocide for religious minorities, more destabilization in the Middle East and more terror here at home.