Obama’s “patience” merely gave ISIS time to grow. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, November 16, 2015.
Peters:
The Obama administration has tried to spin its timidity and ineptitude in the face of Islamist terrorism as a clever policy of “strategic patience.” With eyes closed and fingers crossed, the president hoped that, miraculously, the mortal threat from ISIS would wither away.
The Obama administration has tried to spin its timidity and ineptitude in the face of Islamist terrorism as a clever policy of “strategic patience.” With eyes closed and fingers crossed, the president hoped that, miraculously, the mortal threat from ISIS would wither away.
You
might as well hope that malignant tumors will cure themselves.
President
Obama’s approach of delayed and diluted action — ever doing the minimum
demanded by domestic politics — has allowed ISIS not only to survive but to
expand its appeal, its numbers, its territory and its global impact. Starbucks
took 30 years to reach five continents. ISIS did it in two.
In his
press conference in Turkey on Monday, Obama continued to insist that there was
no need to change his Syria policy, that success merely “will take time.” Yet
it’s precisely because of our unwillingness to take the threat seriously and
then to respond forcefully that ISIS now has a deep bench of seasoned “middle
managers” ready to replace the leaders we kill; it has tens of thousands of
combat-veteran jihadis; it’s made the caliphate real in the city of Raqqa; and
it’s had the leisure to learn how to cope with our weapons (human shields work
every time).
With a
free assist from Edward Snowden, it’s even learned how to circumvent our
intelligence efforts. Ask the French.
Obama
wouldn’t go to Raqqa. So the jihadis went to Paris.
Friday’s
thoroughly planned and boldly executed attacks not only brought darkness to the
City of Light, but scored an enormous propaganda victory for ISIS. With almost
500 Western casualties, a quarter of them dead, the carnage will prove
electrifying to potential jihadi recruits around the world.
Just as
important, our dithering also gave ISIS time to refine its techniques and
strategies. Less than a year ago in Paris, a struggling al Qaeda staged a
shocking, if crude, attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical
magazine. That incident now seems bush league compared to the latest attack,
with its near-simultaneous strikes on six symbolic “lifestyle” targets packed
with infidel victims.
The
first attack was savage. Friday’s attack was savage and sophisticated.
Last
week’s attack was planned in Syria. Three strike teams then infiltrated back
into France or were activated in place. A support network supplied them with
weapons and cars.
Limiting
their communications to the bare minimum (and encrypting them), they relied
largely on the techniques terrorists used a century ago: small cells, minimal
contact, low profiles and deep planning (real strategic patience).
The
result? A handful of men with small arms and home-brew explosives stunned the
world.
Technically,
the Paris attacks were the result of intelligence failure. But that label’s
just too easy. The French are quite good at surveillance. But they’re restricted
by law (as are we) in what they can do domestically; they’re overwhelmed by the
number of potential threats; and they face an adaptive, elusive enemy.
The
ugly truth is that ISIS and its affiliates have been allowed to put down such
deep roots that more attacks are inevitable. Here, too.
What
can be done? The answer is easy to mouth — and unwelcome to those who conduct
foreign policy by platitudes (such as “there’s no military solution”). The base
line is that you can’t win by playing defense. You must take the war to the
enemy — without restraint. If you’re not determined to win at any cost, you’ll
lose.
Our
military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has
penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the
one-word order, “Win!,” our initial actions would be cautious and halting.
We’ve bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their
own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of
“leaning forward in the foxhole,” our leaders lean on lawyers.
If
lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn’t have won.
War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today
just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of
combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win
decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted
agony we see in Syria.
The
generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS
caliphate’s capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have
embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with
their “Berlin.”
Kill
ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable?
Fine. We lose.
And the
jihadis? They’ll always have Paris.