NATO Can Do More to Destroy Islamic State—If We Ask
Obama has taken such a dilettante's tack against ISIS that even Feinstein is attempting to net in NATO, or anyone willing to fight ISIS. How quickly the Democrats have switched from dove to beating the drums of war.
"The goal of the recent attacks directed or inspired by Islamic State on civilians in the U.S. and Europe is to create an atmosphere of fear and to intensify political tensions across the world. As the terrorist organization continues to lose ground in Iraq and Syria, it is focusing more on spreading terror abroad. Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan has repeatedly warned that Western countries should expect more attacks."
First off, this is much more a European problem than a US problem. Europe can act to resolve this crisis on its own, this is not a sufficient problem to warrant triggering the NATO pact war machine. NATO should be reserved for WWII level existential crisis, not terrorism. The EU actually is an independent government which has the ability to discuss these issues, create policy, and ultimately implement policy to thwart threats like ISIS.
Why exactly should the US expend our treasure fighting ISIS, if the EU is unwilling?
NATO is a pact designed to counter invasion of Europe, primarily by the USSR. The USSR being long gone, and "replaced" by Russia who has proven incapable of invading more than a few counties in Georgia, and Ukraine is not a threat similar to the USSR. We need to revisit NATO's raison d'être. Nor is ISIS the type of threat which should trigger a resort to NATO defense. ISIS in the EU is a problem of the EU's own hand. They let the enemy Trojan Horse in, and are now being sapped by terrorists who have spilled out. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the EU to build its military apparatus, and its antiterrorism troops sufficiently to stave off a few men climbing out of the proverbial Trojan Horse.
"As Islamic State shifts its strategy, the U.S. and its allies should as well. The time has come for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to invoke its self-defense clause so the full weight of the alliance is brought to bear against Islamic State, also known as ISIS."
NO! Europe has spent the past 70+ years reducing its military, and increasing its welfare state. It is now incapable of even modest self protection. Germany cannot move troops because it does not have serviceable aircraft. Germany’s Grounded Planes and Soldiers And when it can move troops they quickly run into union work rule problems. German Army Has to Leave NATO Exercises Early Because of Overtime Rules Let that sink in, sorry, Germany can't fight ISIS because of union rules!?
We should not restrict our troops due to NATO or any other treaty demands, if we are to fight ISIS we should do so, as the sole decider of the rules of engagement, and as to how, when and where troops are deployed. Not as a part of some NATO force where we will supply the troops, but the other nations will supply the generals, and decide the ruled of engagement.
The EU is larger than the US, and a prosperous first world power. They should be ponying up the funds, the troops, and the resources to protect themselves, not the US taxpayer, and definitely not US military troops.
"Creating a NATO rapid-reaction force to serve as an attack force against Islamic State would make a major impact. NATO countries have advanced capabilities in intelligence, airpower, special operations and other areas that are required to combat terrorists. Bringing the many resources of NATO nations to bear in the fight against Islamic State—and taking the fight to Iraq and Syria—would help to eliminate ISIS safe havens and to stanch the flow of refugees into Turkey and Europe.
Eliminating Islamic State’s hold on Raqqa and Mosul is essential. If successful, this would reduce the organization’s ability to raise funds, plan terror operations abroad and attract individuals from all over the globe."
If the EU has all of this advanced capability why cannot they simply use it? Yes, I know, the US must head up the fight because . . . blah, blah, blah . . . and more blah. Except for Britain, and a small amount of defensive military capability retained by France, Europe does not have any of the advanced capacities described. To the extent that these countries have special forces, they would need to give them cab fare to fight a war across town. They have let these capabilities die on the vine. The solution is not for the US to again step up to the plate, and perform the difficult, arduous duties necessary to keep Europe free and safe. Instead we need to stand aside, and inform them that they are sufficiently wealthy to take care of their own security. That NATO remains should a serious, massive invasion occur, but that the US will not come every time the Balkans erupt, or a few feral terrorists shoot up a cafe, or wine bar. We are not the EU's policeman on the beat.
Further, what sane nation would allow immigration for lands who have expressly stated they are at war with the West, with Europe, and with the US. I do not remember large immigration of young military age men from either Japan, or Germany during WWII. Perhaps the EU allowing this from the Levant, the Middle East, and North Africa was a bad idea?! Perhaps the US following suit should be reevaluated?!
"The U.S. must also be a leader in removing the online propaganda that motivates attackers to strap bombs to their chests and spray crowds of innocent civilians with gunfire. Some social-media companies are already acting on their own to take down propaganda when they see it, but more must be done. I proposed legislation in December 2015 that would require internet companies to report terrorist activity they encounter online to law enforcement agencies, so that the authorities can quickly act on such leads.
Terrorism was around before al Qaeda and Islamic State and it will be around long after both groups have been defeated. But by doubling down in the fight against these terrorist groups now, the U.S., our NATO partners, and other allies will help stabilize the Middle East while making Americans and the rest of the world safer at home."
I take it that only the US can fight online propaganda, and terrorist recruiting strategies. We should address this issue, since it directly affects the US. But we should expect that the EU will fight this problems well, particularly as it pertains to the EU. Apparently all of the vaunted advanced capabilities available to the EU do not include fighting a cyber war.
The Europeans have existed as if they are America's children living in the basement. They took our assistance, our war material, our men, and our will to win WWII. Then they took our aid to rebuild their nations. We nursed them back to health, and traded profusely with them rebuilding, and strengthening their economies. We took the primary role in protecting them militarily, with the understanding that they would eventually retake this role. But no. They balked, they found it easier to spend money pampering their people, while we did the hard work of international politics, and international protection. Britain helped immensely but the rest were at best dilettante.
Today we are left with a conundrum. Either we force Europe to grow up and be responsible, or we infantilize them, and forever they will remain the immature, carping child in the basement, always whinging about injustice. I have no interest in this.
It is time we leave NATO. And if that is a bridge too far, then inform the whingey, childish Europeans that our end of NATO cannot be activated absent a WWII like existential world crisis. We are not coming for a few terrorists, we are not coming because Russia postures up. It is time for Europe to man up and act responsibly.
Note: what Feinstein is doing is banging the war drums so that once Hillary the Warmonger is in power the Democrats will be in accord that war is necessary, and Hillary will have her authority to go to war. Oh, it will be disguised as a NATO conflict, or perhaps an EU conflict, but NATO is the US. A Clinton Presidency will be one of war, with focus, unlike the Obama accidental wars. The body count under Clinton will be of serious import.
Ultimately the problem is that the muslims, and particularly the Arabs are living under the tyrannical thumbs of dictators. The people chafe, but the dictator have used oil money to make the lives of the chafing Arabs sufficiently easy that they do not rebel. Instead their frustrations are focused outward, towards the West. They have become an entitled people who are angry about their trivial lives, their uselessness, their lack of purpose. The Palestinian mob has been used to refocus these frustrations from the tyrants towards Israel, and the West.
The solution for International Terrorism, is to refocus the attentions of the frustrated muslims/Arabs onto the tyrants, and onto the existential war brewing between the Shia, and the Salafi/Sunni. This Islamic reformation is the key to reducing International Terrorism, and permanently solving the Islamist problem.
Hillary will not accomplish this, as she will bring the war to the wrong "enemy." The true enemy of progress, of liberty, of free markets, of republican governance, and of reformed religions is the Salafi/Sunni, not the Shia. Yet we continue to ally with the House of Saud, and the other Middle East oil tyrants.
Feinstein wouldn't know a good idea if it beat her with a stick. Ignoring her as the lolly knob she is appropriate.