|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
Who Would Have
Imagined…?
By Kate Burch
It may well happen that the demonstration of spine by French President
Hollande following the terrorist murders of 132 in Paris will lose
popular support shortly. Look what happened to George W. Bush,
initially cheered by all Americans for his strong response to the
attacks of 9/11, but eventually and predictably demonized by the Left
for the outrage of wanting to keep us safe. The self-righteous
moral preeners convinced many Americans that reasonable initiatives
regarding terrorist surveillance and interrogation of captives, for
example, were illegal, unconstitutional, and sinful; and moral preeners
dominate the public conversation in France, too. But in the
meantime, there will be fewer jokes about the French being weak
“surrender monkeys” as they have moved in swiftly and decisively to
counter ISIS.
Will our Commander in Chief agree to support and assist in the military
response to the horrors of last Friday the 13th? It appears, to
our shame, that he will not. NATO, which was originally intended
as a structure enabling the United States to help our European allies,
demands that if one member is attacked, the other members will come to
its aid. If Obama lets the French down and the French, instead,
form a joint military operation with RUSSIA (!), what happens to
NATO?
Our president expresses belief that a military response to ISIS only
serves as a recruiting tool for ISIS. Many serious and
knowledgeable people disagree and cite convincing evidence of the
effectiveness of taking the fight to the enemy and, indeed, the
critical and essential need to do so, and quickly.
How much of the disinclination to mount a military offensive is due to
sheer cowardice? How effective have terrorist attacks on
civilians been in creating the impression that ISIS fighters and
suicide bombers are much more ubiquitous, organized, and effective than
they truly are?
Seems to me that military action to contain and decimate ISIS is the
only sensible and effective option.
We also must give very serious attention and thought to the “refugee”
crisis and the clear and present threat of growing Muslim populations
in the West. Islamists have not been reticent about their goal of
establishing the caliphate, which means taking over the world and
imposing Sharia law universally. There have been many voices of
warning over the past few decades, but too often they have been
unheeded or disparaged. I recall reading, about ten years ago, a
book by Oriana Fallaci, a courageous Italian journalist, in which she
described listening to an imam on regular Italian commercial television
saying that the Muslims did not need to conquer the Infidel militarily
because they would do so “through the wombs of our women.” Ms.
Fallaci, after numerous death threats, emigrated to the U.S., where she
died a few years later of cancer.
Most Muslims are peaceful people, of course, but Islam cannot
truthfully be called a “religion of peace.” The fundamentalists are
firmly convinced that they are required by Allah, as written in the
Koran, to conquer and impose Islam on the world. They are sure
that the barbarism of their methods: crucifixions, beheadings,
mutilations, torture, are smiled upon by the deity as they work to
fulfill their mission. They recruit largely from people who are
young, idle, and disaffected.
All this makes me think that, in addition to measures to address the
imminent threat such as strictly restricting entry of the Syrian
migrants and collaborating with our allies in a military response, we
must commit to reforms that will strengthen our economy and provide
opportunity for those currently with too much time on their hands and
vulnerable to persuasion by subversives. Those who are
meaningfully and productively engaged in work are not likely to
be involved in activities that threaten their own well-being or that of
their neighbor.
|
|
|
|
