In the war on terror, political correctness has been an even stronger foe than ISIS. Two candidates for president know this: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. When the philosophy is correct and when the obvious truth is spoken, we are one step closer to providing real solutions to critical problems.
When we are denied the truth about world events, when we are told things are purple when we can obviously see things are purely pink, anger builds. This is the best explanation for the election phenomenon known as Donald Trump. People are so hungry for someone who tells it like it is, even in crude terms, that they are willing to ignore the obvious lies and flip-flops of the candidate who is the most non-PC.
Build walls! Kick out all the illegals (then give amnesty to the good ones)! Ban Muslims from entering the US! These are things Obama and all of his ilk have said we couldn't do. They refuse to name the enemy and have weakened America on the world stage. So, I guess, it is normal for a portion of the electorate to support and vote for the loudest voice making a noise that is much better than Obama's.
For some it's hard to listen to the harsh reality of the truth. Despite the attempts to label him lyin' Ted, Cruz has been speaking the truth on the more pertinent challenges Americans face and is constantly being slammed by all media, even those clearly in the tank for and/or are already on the payroll of the billionaire candidate. Should Trump succeed and win the nomination and pull off a miracle and beat Hillary Clinton, we should hope and pray he adopts the philosophy of "why" fighting the war on terror is important.
Ted Cruz already understands this "why" yet lacks adequate media attention to explain this philosophy. One of his advisers, Andrew McCarthy, explains in detail what the limited media sound bites allowed to Cruz cannot:
Our enemies are at war with us. They continue to execute acts of war, not tragedies, against us. We cannot “end” the war by withdrawing from it; we can only lose that way. We cannot prevail, or even adequately protect ourselves, without seeing the enemy plain: radical Islam — Islamic supremacists determined to impose sharia on the world, with jihadists as the pointy end of the spear, and ideological sympathizers as their support system.
We know, nearly a quarter century after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, that jihadist cells arise and thrive in ideological enclaves; that is where the radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, plotting, and injection and protection of jihadist immigrants occurs. We cannot deny reality by rationalizing that if we admit the truth we will be misunderstood as being “at war with Islam” — as in all Muslims.
What we like to think of as “radical Islam” is actually a legitimate and rabidly anti-Western interpretation of Islam that is followed by millions of Muslims. It is irrelevant to non-Muslims in the West whether theirs is a correct or incorrect construction of Muslim scripture. The remorseless fact remains that its adherents believe it — with a fervor that inspires the kinds of attacks we’ve seen today and have seen over and over again. Those adherents include Muslims who lack the commitment to carry out attacks themselves but nevertheless provide moral (and other) support to those who do, and who populate the Western immigrant enclaves in which the ideology thrives.
It’s a welcome fact that there are other ways of interpreting Islam that do not endorse war and hostility against the West; those who offer these interpretations are our allies, and we should be encouraging them rather than turning to enemies such as the Muslim Brotherhood to help us conduct “community outreach.” Still, the fact that there are pro-Western Muslims and authentically tolerant interpretations of Islam does not — and cannot be allowed to — obscure the fact that Islamic supremacism is a mainstream construction of Islam. It is not “false” Islam, or “anti-Islam.” It is Islam that competes, violently, with other constructions of Islam.
It is not our job to broker the claims these competitors make regarding what is the “true Islam.” It is our job to protect ourselves and our allies, and to crush the jihadist armies and cells that are prosecuting the war against us. If we do not acknowledge what the threat is and where it is coming from, we will continue to embrace the policies that empower the enemy. In a time of war, we cannot indulge a policy of mass immigration from countries where sharia supremacism is a significant presence.
With respect to Muslim immigrant communities that are already here, we must have sensible surveillance policies that identify and focus police attention on mosques and community centers that endorse anti-Western Islamic supremacism. That is not a dragnet against all Muslims; it is the arena where pro-American Muslims can step up and help us. No law-enforcement or intelligence agency wants to waste its time and resources investigating innocent people. But we have to be clear that Muslims who endorse Islamic supremacism, who want our Constitution supplanted by sharia, are on the wrong side of this war, regardless of whether they cross the line into violence.
Finally, we cannot tolerate jihadist safe havens anyplace on earth. The administration recently conceded that it has no strategy to deny the Islamic State — which has claimed responsibility for today’s attack — their sanctuary in Raqqa (to say nothing of their other strongholds). Let’s be clear: If ISIS is orchestrating attacks on the West from Syria and Iraq, that is an American national-security challenge, not just a civil war in a faraway place. American national-security problems cannot responsibly be delegated to other forces who will carry out our defense and war-fighting responsibilities for us. This is our problem.
There has not yet been a serious bombing campaign against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, and it is fair enough to say that the number of troops we may have to commit hinges on how committed we are to an intense air campaign. We should not delude ourselves, however: The jihadists are planning to attack the United States as well as Europe, and it is going to take American military commitment to destroy them — not to carry out an experiment in democracy-building, but to eradicate the threat to our nation and our allies.A nation without the truth will not stand for long. Remember it's only a Republic if we fight to keep it.
No comments:
Post a Comment