BUT THE OBAMA DOCTRINE IS AN ABYSMAL FAILURE FOR THE FREE WORLD:
THE WORLD IS AFLAME WITH JIHADIST VIOLENCE FROM WEST AFRICA TO THE PHILIPPINES.
SYRIA AND IRAQ ARE COLLAPSING AND THREATENING OUR ALLIES JORDAN AND EGYPT AND ISRAEL.
OBAMA'S WAR AGAINST KADDAFY HAS MADE LIBYA A STATELESS COUNTRY AND DESTABILIZED NORTH AFRICA.
WE NEED TO CHANGE STRATEGY IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.
Andy McCarthy suggests we return to the Bush Doctrine, with an addendum:
... the Bush Doctrine [...] remains the only [strategy] that has any chance of working . . . at least if we add a small but crucial addendum — one that should have been obvious enough back in 2001, and that hard lessons of history have now made inescapable.
[...] The unadorned Bush Doctrine had two straightforward parts. First, because violent jihadists launch attacks against the United States when they have safe havens from which to plot and train, we must hunt down those terrorists wherever on earth they operate. Second, the nations of the world must be put to a choice: You are with us or you are with the terrorists. Period — no middle ground. If you are with the terrorists, you will be regarded, as they are regarded, as an enemy of the United States.
[...]The Bush Doctrine ... is the path to victory — if we get that one addendum right. It is this: Our enemies are not driven by American foreign policy, our friendship with Israel, our detention of jihadists at Gitmo, or the supposed “arrogance” our current president likes to apologize for. Those are all pretexts for aggression. Our enemies are driven by an ideology, Islamic supremacism, that is rooted in a classical interpretation of sharia — Islamic law. Islamic supremacism is rabidly anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic. It rejects the fundamental premise of our liberty: that people are free to govern themselves, rather than be ruled by a totalitarian legal code that suffocates liberty and brutally discriminates against non-Muslims and apostates. And sharia is an actual war on women — denying them equal rights under the law, subjecting them to unthinkable abuse, and reducing them in many ways to chattel. In the “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” view of national security, any Muslim nation, organization, or individual that adheres to Islamic supremacism is on the wrong side. Failing to come to terms with that brute fact is where the Bush Doctrine went awry.
[...] But it does mean we should be using all our assets — not just military but intelligence, law-enforcement, financial, and diplomatic — to undermine regimes that support sharia supremacism.
Cutting off that jihadist life-line is the path to victory — just as maintaining a strong military that is allowed to show it means business, that is not hamstrung by irresponsible rules of engagement, is the best way to ensure we won’t have to use it too often. In Iran, where sharia is the law of the land, they persecute non-Muslims and apostates just like ISIS does. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, they behead their prisoners just like ISIS does. A candidate who cannot tell liberty’s friends from liberty’s enemies is not fit to be commander-in-chief.I HAVE ARGUED THIS VERY THING FOR YEARS.
I HAVE ESPECIALLY ARGUED THAT WE NEED TO TREAT SHARIA NATIONS WHICH CONDONE ISLAMO-MISOGYNY AS WE DID STATES WHICH TRADED IN SLAVES AND ALLOWED SLAVERY:
THESE NATIONS NEED TO BE UTTERLY SHUNNED BY THE FREE WORLD; BANNED FROM TRADE AND AL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
BUT - IN MY OPINION - BECAUSE OUR ENEMIES
- ARE NOT ALL NATION-STATES, AND ARE
- NOT NECESSARILY CONNECTED BY ANYTHING MORE THAN A COMMITMENT TO THE HIDEOUS IDEOLOGY OF JIHADISM, AND
- THE ATTACKS ARE OFTEN ASYMMETRIC - COSTING THE ENEMY VERY LITTLE AND COSTING US A LOT -
WE NEED TO ADD MORE MORE ELEMENT:
WE NEED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WHEN JIHADISTS FROM ANY JIHADIST GROUP LOCATED ANYWHERE ATTACK US OR OUR ALLIES ANYWHERE, THEN WE WILL RETALIATE ON ANY JIHADISTS ANYWHERE.
WE WASTE TOO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY TRYING TO CONNECT EACH ATTACK TO AN EXACT SET OF CONSPIRATORS AND TRYING TO PINPOINT A COUNTER-ATTACK ON ONLY THOSE CONSPIRATORS.
IN THE VAST SCHEME OF THINGS, IT REALLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHARLIE HEDBO ATTACKS WERE PLANNED BY AQAP IN YEMEN OR ISIS IN SYRIA OR WERE LONE WOLVES ATTACKS CARRIED OUT BY SOCIOPATHS INSPIRED BY A VARIETY OF IMAMS ON THE INTERNET.
WHAT MATTERS IS THAT WE SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT ATTACKS ON US AND OUR ALLIES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND THAT WE WILL NOT BE BULLIED INTO SUBMISSION.
WHAT MATTERS IS THAT JIHADISTS AND WANNABE JIHADISTS LEARN THAT THEIR ATTACKS WILL NEVER SUCCEED AND WILL ONLY BRING THEM AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS AND THEIR SPIRITUAL AND FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS DISPROPORTIONATE SUFFERING DEATH AND DEFEAT.
AND THAT MEANS THAT:
- AFTER AN JIHADIST TERROR ATTACK...
- ON US OR OUR ALLIES...
- WE WILL SPEEDILY COUNTER-ATTACK...
- AGAINST THE MOST OPPORTUNE JIHADIST TARGET AVAILABLE...
- WITH AS MUCH DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE AS POSSIBLE...
- THAT YIELDS THE LEAST POSSIBLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
FOR EXAMPLE: AN ATTACK BY AQAP IN SINAI MIGHT BE COUNTERED BY BOMBING AN MILF CAMP IN MINDANAO, OR A TALIBAN CAMP IN AFGHANISTAN.
AND THIS REQUIRES NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND, JUST MISSILES AND DRONES LAUNCHED BY THE US NAVY, AIR FORCE AND MARINES.
A GLOBAL PROBLEM REQUIRES A GLOBAL RESPONSE.
WHEN WE RESPOND GLOBALLY WE SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL THE JIHADISTS - OF EVERY VARIETY - AND ALL THE NATIONS WHICH HARBOR THEM OR AID THEM.
WE ESSENTIALLY TELL THE ENEMY:
IF WE ARE NOT SAFE, THEN YOU ARE NOT SAFE.
NOT YOU AND NOT ANYONE LIKE YOU, IDEOLOGICALLY.