The War Continues

For John, BLUF:  This war has been going on for some 1350 years.  Why would it end now?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Forever War Isn’t Over

Here is the sub-headline:

The Afghan debacle just marks a new, more murderous phase

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Columnist Matthew Continetti, 20 August 2021, 5:00 am.

Here is the lede plus two:

"I'm now the fourth American president to preside over war in Afghanistan—two Democrats and two Republicans," President Biden said during his speech on August 16.  "I will not pass this responsibly on— responsibility on to a fifth president."  He needn't have corrected himself.  He did indeed irresponsibly bequeath to his successor a terrible situation in central Asia.

The best-case scenario, according to Biden, would look like this:  Afghanistan's reversion to Islamofascism fades from the international headlines.  The Taliban understands that its continued rule depends on its ability to prevent terrorists from launching attacks from its territory.  America goes back to fighting over masks and vaccinations and "building back better," or whatever.

But the best-case scenario is an illusion.  Why?  Because the war isn't over.  Afghanistan is just one front in a global conflict that the United States did not initiate and cannot wish away.  The Cold War did not end when the South Vietnamese government collapsed. Nor will the war on terror or the "Long War" or the "Forever War" cease with Taliban control of Afghanistan.  When participants in the worldwide Salafist-jihadist movement look at the developments of the last week, they don't see reasons to quit their mayhem.  They see the chaos, panic, violence, disorder, and American retreat as a vindication of their ideology and a spur to further action.

The path forward is open to discussion, but the fact of militant Islamic groups working to achieve a worldwide umma should not be ignored.  Not all Muslims, or even most, but some.

This is not like the American Civil War.  When General Robert E Lee surrendered at Appomatox Courthouse on 9 April 1965 he was out of the war and became a loyal US Citizen again.  Yes, there were some holdouts and the KKK, but the war was basically over.  World War II ended with the surrender of Italy, and then Germany and then Japan.  It is not the same with the various Islamic jihadi groups.  Stand by and be alert.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

911 From the Other Side

For John, BLUF:  The perpetrators of the 911 attacks, back in 2001, al-Qaddafi, has not gone away and the US is the focus of their attention.  The US is the main enemy .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Al Qaeda leader:  America is the main enemy in a ‘single war with different fronts’

From Long War Journal, by Mr Thomas Joscelyn, 11 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

Al Qaeda released a new message from its leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, to commemorate the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 hijackings earlier today.  Titled “How to Confront America,” the talk is intended to rally jihadists and supporters against their common perceived enemy.  Much of the message is not a how-to so much as it is a restatement of al Qaeda’s anti-American view.

Zawahiri portrays the US as the chief enemy of Muslims around the globe.  Of course, al Qaeda has repeatedly plotted and called for terrorist attacks inside the West.  But that is not the only way Zawahiri thinks the jihadists should continue to fight the Americans.

“We must wage the war – in any part of the Islamic World – as if it is a single war with different fronts against a united enemy,” Zawahiri explains.  The wars in “the tribal areas in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Mali, Somalia and elsewhere” are not just “between the Muslims and the local governments only,” according to Zawahiri.  Instead, these conflicts have “always been between the Muslims and the system of the major international criminals – America being the foremost.”

In Zawahiri’s framework, there is no firm line between al Qaeda’s so-called far and near enemies, as they are all part of the same global war.

In our thinking we need to differentiate between the Taliban (Afghanistan) and al-Qaeda (Global jihad).

We can pull out of Afghanistan, and while that might placate the Taliban, it will not placate al-Qaeda.  The terrorist threat will remain.

Hat tip to Defense News, "Early Bird Edition".

Regards  —  Cliff

Ending the War in Afghanistan

For John, BLUF:  I don't think we can kill our way to peace, and we don't want another Killing Fields outcome, so it will take some imaginative thinking to end this.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Time for this war in Afghanistan to end,’ says departing US commander

From The Boston Globe, by Reporter Mujib Mashal, 3 September 2018.

The origin of the story is The New York Times.

The tone of the story is somewhat down-beat.  We have been there a while, since shortly after 9/11.

The outgoing commander of forces from 41 different nations, US Army General John Nicholson Jr., believes it is time for the Taliban to give peace a try.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Terror Continues

For John, BLUF:  Jihad, and with it, Terrorism, will continue until we, and especially our Muslim Brothers and Sisters across the globe, find a counter to Jihad and Terrorism.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Prepare Yourself for Jihad 3.0

The sub-headline:

Radical Islamic terrorists will revive their movement. The U.S. needs to focus on defeating the ideology.

This is from The Wall Street Journal and is authored by Mr Husain Haqqani, of the Hudson Institute, on 2 November 2017.

Here is the lede plus three:

Tuesday’s terrorist attack in New York City, committed by an immigrant from Uzbekistan, is a reminder that radical political Islam won’t end with the recent defeat of Islamic State in Raqqa.

Just as the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan soon after 9/11 did not mark the end of al Qaeda, extremist forces in the Muslim world will continue to resuscitate themselves in other forms, in other theaters.  If al Qaeda was Jihad 1.0 in our era, and ISIS was Jihad 2.0, we should now prepare for Jihad 3.0.  Islamism will continue to be a U.S. national-security concern for years to come.

The New York attacker, Sayfullo Saipov, did not match the standard profile of a jihadi terrorist.  He was likely self-radicalized, did not overtly belong to a major terrorist group, and would not have been denied entry under President Trump’s “travel ban” due to his country of origin.

In trying to re-create an Islamic state, radical Islamists draw inspiration from 14 centuries of history.  It is important to understand the various Muslim “revivalist” movements, involving various degrees of violence and challenges to the global order of the time.  Contemporary radicals often reach into the past to find models for organization and mobilization.

The point is, this is not over.  We need to find ways to work with those Muslims who are here and respectful of what the United States stands for, while work to deal with the ideology of those who will for Jihad 3.0.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Islam and the West

For John, BLUF:  Let us be open to dialogue, to learning.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Mr Robert Spencer of Pajamas Media we have a look at some inadvertent Muslim contributions to our nation, "5 Ways Muslims Have Contributed to 'Building the Very Fabric of Our Nation'".

It is sarcasm.

And, the first item, item 5, skipped over the fact that Spain was only able to send a exploration force to the New World because it had defeated the last of the Moors in early 1492.

That said, Muslims, as US Citizens, contribute to the wealth and well being of the United States every day.  I think we should go out of our way to be positive toward our Muslim neighbors.  Their co-religious across Northern Africa, the Middle East and South Asia are struggling with the question of how Islam fits in with the ideas of individual rights as developed in the West during the Enlightenment (earlier in England—thus the term "Rights of Englishmen").♠  This is a hard struggle and one we should support.  It would seem to me that Islam can be compatible with Western Values.  For example, read If the Oceans Were Ink: An Unlikely Friendship and a Journey to the Heart of the Quran, by Ms Carla Power.  As with Christianity and the Jewish Religion, there is a spectrum of views within Islam.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Just as on 17 March every American is an Irishman, so when it comes to individual rights we are all Englishmen.

Clashing Cultures vs Assimilation

For John, BLUF:  I am for immigration, even of Muslims, but I want the straight facts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Town Hall and Mr John Hawkins, yesterday, we have "Dear American Muslims, Can We Have An Honest Talk?".

Here is the start of the piece

On 9/11, one of my roommates was a Turkish pilot.  Not only was he sent home that day, he didn’t work again for weeks.  In one moment he was just a guy with a religion that most Americans had no strong opinions about.  In the next, there were people who thought he was potentially dangerous because of what he believed.

I’m sure a lot of Muslims have gone through that and since then, every other day it seems like there’s a story in the news about a Muslim blowing himself up, murdering innocent people or taking sex slaves.  Ironically, most of the victims of these Muslims are other Muslims.  So, if you’re a peaceful Muslim who loves his country, I’m sure it’s easy to feel under siege.

Personally, I think most American Muslims are good people; they’re anti-terrorist; they’re anti-Sharia law and they want to raise their families in peace and pursue the American Dream just like everybody else.  I condemn in the strongest of terms, not just hate crimes and harassment, but the smearing of all Muslims with the same brush.  Every Muslim who seems like a nice guy isn’t engaging in Taqiyya as he secretly plans to kill the infidels.  Moreover, telling Muslims who mean us no harm that if they understood their own religion, they’d be murdering the rest of us is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

Spot on.  Americans are Americans and Muslims who are Americans are just as good, or as bad, as the rest of us.  They prove them selves time and time again.  Here is a piece from "The Ideas Section" of The Boston Globe this last Sunday.  Mr John Rodriquez, from the Truman National Security Project give us "My Muslim brothers-in-arms".  Good article and spot on.

But, Mr Hawkins, after reviewing the statistics world-wide, ends on an important point:

If you want to dramatically cut the risk of having another 9/11 in the next few years and want to reduce the number of American women who will be raped, reducing the number of Muslims we allow to live in our country long-term would be the most effective thing we could do.

It all depends on how willing we are to deal with the world as it is as opposed to what we wish it would be.  It’s time to stop pretending that the problem is people pointing out that a significant minority of Muslims worldwide are radicalized and to start realistically dealing with the fact that a significant minority of Muslims worldwide are radicalized.  With everything we know, we shouldn’t need another 9/11 to convince us to start taking reasonable precautions with our immigration policy.

And, I would assert, the Federal and State Governments are not helping us make choices as voters and make accommodations as neighbors because they are not giving us the full story on immigration.  No fireside chats, no insights, no statistics.  Put another way, one of the things lacking in dealing with this is leadership.  At least with President George W Bush I thought I was getting the straight skinny.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Mayors Speak Up

For John, BLUF:  This problem of terrorism in the United States will not magically go away any time soon.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the computers of Ben Wofford and Manuela Tobias, we have a Politico item headlined "Mayors:  We’re More Scared of Terrorism Than Ever".  The sub-headline is "But we’re sick of the fear mongering—that means you, Mr. Trump.  We need real help."♠

The lede:

Amid an election cycle dominated by fear of global terrorism threatening Americans at home, mayors of dozens of cities across the United States told Politico they feel a growing apprehension about attacks on their citizens—and a mounting anxiety that they do not have the resources to prepare for it.

It is interesting that the Nation's Mayors are starting to look at Terrorism, yet the Federal Government is still focused on gun violence.

Mayors who look back in their history a hundred years know that we have had terrorism, often labeled anarchy in our past and it, by and large, fell to the Mayors to deal with it.  For a small snapshot, here is an article from The Tampa Bay Times about Ybor City and its relationship to Anarchy, back in the day.

A key point was made by one mayor, who noted that terrorists aren't just looking for size, but for significance.  An attack on the Mall of America would have a bigger impact that an attack on New York City.

“Terrorists don't pick their targets based upon the size of the city, but upon the value of the target,” wrote one mayor. “Distribute money by likely targets not city size.”

Terrorism hasn't gone away.  And even after Daesh is defeated in Syria and Iraq dregs of it will remain and those dregs will continue to cause trouble for a while.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Poor Mr Trump.  First he appears to flinch in front of Fox's Megan Kelly and now this.  Truth be told, Mr Trump's campaigning is not creating terrorism.  Rather, the treat comes from a religion which shall not be named, but with an apocalyptic vision, and whose members are doing what they can to make that apocalyptic vision a reality.

Obama Administration and Gun Control

For John, BLUF:  Most of the talk on gun control is feel good talk.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Power Line and Mr John Hinderaker we have: s; "ON GUNS, THE DEMOCRATS AREN’T SERIOUS"

News reports indicate that next week, President Obama will unveil new regulations intended to force some non-firearms dealers to run background checks before selling guns.  Since the database against which background checks are run is close to useless with respect to mental illness, and since lawbreakers won’t run searches in any event, such a change will have, at best, symbolic value.  I will have more to say about that later in the weekend.

For now, I want to note that gun crime–suddenly the Democrats’ favorite topic–is something about which the Democrats have never been serious.  We already have many federal and state laws and regulations on the books.  Gun rights advocates often suggest that instead of enacting still more laws and regulations, the government would do better to enforce the ones already on the books.  They are right.

President Obama purports to be deeply concerned about gun crime.  But how has his administration done with respect to prosecuting those who violate the laws already on the books?  This chart, from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, tells the story:

[AND THE CHART GOES HERE]

The Clinton administration talked a good game on guns–remember the “assault weapons” ban?–but when it came to actual law enforcement, its record was horrendous.  (Someone should mention that to Hillary.)  Things shaped up considerably under the Bush administration, which achieved record levels of gun-crime-related convictions. But when Barack Obama became president and Eric Holder took over the Department of Justice, enforcement went straight downhill.  Over the course of the Obama administration, it has only gotten worse. Today, gun convictions are down 35% since the Bush administration peak in 2005 and 2006. Obama and Holder had an agenda, but it wasn’t law enforcement.

While I quoted most of the piece, I didn't quote it all.  So, click the link, above, and see the graphic and the last paragraph.

The idea that we would use the badly flawed TSA "No Fly" list for gun control purposes is ludicrous.♠  The idea of a background check makes sense to me.  The idea that legislators think that criminals will be deterred by the background check requirement suggests we need new legislators.  The idea that we would refer to the San Berdoo event, with 14 dead, as an example of gun violence causes me to despair of there being any strategic insight within the Democrat Party.  It was revolutionary warfare expressed with violence.  It was about a Criminal Gang, Daesh, recruiting new members to stir up trouble so it can make itself into a real Caliphate, saving the world for a special kind of Islam, expressed in its own actions today.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  At one point the late Senator Ted Kennedy was on it.

Keep the Terrorism Problem in Perspective

For John, BLUF:  We win with a better story, not a trumped up story.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In Saturday's edition of The [Lowell] Sun is a column by Michelle Malkin, "How to create an anti-Muslim hate-crime 'epidemic'".

Ms Malkin takes to task Mr Brian Levin and his one-man "Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism" at California State University, San Bernardino.  Turns out that Mr Levin's operation is an offshoot of the very prejudiced Southern Poverty Law Center.

Hate crimes, which is a fancy word for assault and malicious mischief, are up against Muslims, but still not at the level of those against Jews.  And, terrorist attacks do make people nervous and jumpy.  Terrorist attacks that Government officials try to sweep under the rug as gun violence make people even more nervous and jumpy.

We need good leadership from Government officials and from ministers of the faith.  We need facts to help us understand the magnitude of the problem.  We need police actions that are quickly responsive, as in the San Bernardino event, but are not over reactions.  What we don't need is Government officials telling us that there isn't a problem, or worse, that we are the problem by our reactions.  Terrorism is all about reactions.  Help us to react properly by giving us the truth.  We can handle the truth.

One thing we, as citizens, need to understand is that it really is a few bad apples and not our neighbors.  Terrorism is actions on the part of people who can't do anything else.  On the other hand, we should recognize that the Criminal Gang of al Baghdadi (think Chicago 1920s Gang Leader) is able to tell a great story to disaffected youth throughout the West.  We need to counteract that story with an open hand.

If The [Lowell] Sun ever publishes a URL I will publish it here.

Regards  —  Cliff

Christmas in Iraq

For John, BLUF:  There is hope in parts of Iraq.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A younger acquaintance of mine is serving in Iraq as a US Army military advisor to the Iraqi Army.  On Christmas Eve, our time, he wrote this note, which brings hope.

I was able to attend Mass at St. Joseph's Chaldean Church in Erbil tonight.  The Archbishop of Mosul celebrated with the Archbishop of Erbil.  At the end he gave a quick talk thanking the congregation for their hospitality on this, their second Christmas away from their city.  He said that next year he hopes to celebrate Christmas at home and not as a displaced person in Northern Iraq.

The Archbishop of Mosul returning home of course depends upon the defeat of Daesh, the criminal gang which is excluding from its territories anyone who is not the same as them.  No diversity in their areas of control.

In the mean time, the Iraqi Government, which needs to retake Mosul, has put out this 2'11" YouTube Propaganda video, "Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units promise Mosul's church bells will ring again".  It is propaganda, but propaganda needs to be based on a kernel of truth or on actual hopes and wishes (or fears).

Regards  —  Cliff

Strategic Tokenism

For John, BLUF:  Smoke and mirrors and Hillary too.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, long time strategic thinker Anthony H. Cordesman (holder of the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS) gives us "More Special Forces For Iraq and Syria: Tactical Asset or Strategic Tokenism".

I think Mr Cordesman has put his finger on what is happening with our policy in the Middle East.  We don't really take action, but make token moves that look like we are taking action.  But, we aren't.

And, there are only so many special forces we can dispatch to the area.  They are "special" because of who they are and their training.  Eventually one runs out of special forces and is down to the regular forces.  Then one either commits troops on the ground or one says the candle isn't worth the game or one engages in more strategic tokenism, hoping that time can be purchased cheaply.  The President only needs to buy time until 20 January 2017, some 394 days and less than two hours hence.  The rest of us will be hoping for time until this long war in the Middle East stops impacting us here at home (or in our vacation spots).

Regards  —  Cliff

Seymour Hersh Cries Treason

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the London Review of Books we have Mr Seymour Hersh accusing senior officials in the Department of Defense of treason—"Military to Military", "Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war".

Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon's Joint Staff.  Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration's fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin.  In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn't adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington's anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

While the I think suggesting President Obama "is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China" is flat out wrong, there has been a recent flap about intelligence out of the Middle East being "adjusted".  And, there is the fact that President Obama has fixated on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a way that has allowed the nation to descend into chaos.  The fact is, President Assad has been the protector of minorities in Syria.  Yes, the Arab Spring came to Syria, but it died there.  But, Daesh did not.  It lives.  It thrives on opposing the Shia Bashar Assad.

And, the area is so complex and intertwined that there is no way to sort out the good guys from the bad.  Each faction is working to achieve its own goals and they may not be the same goals as other factions they align with.  As an example of the problem, Turkey is against Daesh, but it is also against the Kurds, who are also against Daesh.  Here is a sample from The Huffington Post, "The U.S. Found The People Who Can Beat ISIS.  The Only Problem Is Everyone Hates Them".  This would be the Syrian Kurds.  This article doesn't address the leakage of young Sunni Kurds to Daesh.  What a mess.

Then there is this "bottom line up front" from the Soufan Group today:

The tremendous effort required to topple the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will pale compared to the effort necessary to prevent its return.

Read the whole thing from the Soufan Group.  It is bracing.  If Ms Hillary Clinton thinks that Donald Trump is the recruiting tool for Daesh she is in way over her head and electing her would just give us more of the same clueless avoidance of discussing the real issues.

Regards  —  Cliff

We Don't Check Social Media?

For John, BLUF:  Everyone else is looking.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From four Reporters for Time Magazine we have:

"Secret US Policy Blocks Agents From Looking at Social Media of Visa Applicants, Former Official Says".

This is a 14 December 2015 report.

So, while the IRS wants your SSAN if you contribute to your church, the DHS doesn't want agents checking on the public tweets and Facebook postings from your fiancée from Lower Slabovia, including the ones where your fiancée advocates the violent overthrow of the US  Government.  I wonder if this would extend to making threats against a US President, or does the Secret Service operate under different rules?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The President on Daesh

For John, BLUF:  I am not sure the President is doing all that well communicating on Daesh.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing for Time Magazine, Mr Mark Thompson gives us "Reading Between the Lines of President Obama's ISIS Pentagon Briefing".

Regards  —  Cliff

Gun Madness

For John, BLUF:  We have people so afraid they would turn the nation upside down.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mr Fred Read, writing in Fred on Everything, 11 Dec 2015, gives us "Allahu Akbar!  :  The View from 2018".

I wonder if he wrote this before or after he heard about White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest saying that the problem in San Berdoo, the 14 dead, was really about gun control?

Frankly, we are seeing a group of Americans out there who a traumatized by the Second Amendment.  People who are all for the right to die,♠ but who are traumatized by 30,000 people a year taking their own lives.

There is a terrorist threat out there and it isn't just about guns.  Remember the Boston Marathon Bombings?  But, terrorists will find ways to get guns if that is the tool they wish for.  California laws didn't stop them.  The often praised European gun laws didn't stop the recent events in Paris.  Yes, we need reasonable gun control, but we need to follow, not subvert, the Second Amendment.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  (not actually a right, we have a responsibility to live)

Where Should Our Focus Be With Regard to Daech?

For John, BLUF:  If you can't answer the Center of Gravity question all you can do is play whack-a-mole.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

One of President Obama's opening lines in his Oval Office talk Sunday last was:

We are at war with Terrorism.

A friend of mine noted in an EMail:

As Eliot Cohen wrote shortly after George W declared the Global War on Terrorism, “Declaring war on Terrorism after 9/11 makes about as much sense as declaring war on Dive Bombers after Pearl Harbor.”

This comment about being "at war with terrorism" is, for me, the one slip in the President's 13 minute talk from the Oval Office.  Terrorism is a tactic.  We need to better define the enemy than a tactic he uses. The tactic is not a "center of gravity".  To win, as Dead Carl tells us, we need to identify the enemy center of Gravity.

Here is a 35 page monograph on the topic of a center of gravity.

Now it is your turn, dear read:

What do you think is the Center of Gravity we need to identify?

The Daesh (ISIS) leadership.

The Daesh (ISIS) forces in the field.

The financing for Daesh.

Saudi support for Daesh

The ability of Daesh to recruit soldiers from Europe and the US.

The Wahhabist religion they follow.

Their apocalyptic world view.

The inability of Islam to look inward and self criticize.

The weakness of the Syrian and Iraqi Governments.

Something else (please describe in Comments).

 

pollcode.com free polls

Regards  —  Cliff

Democrats Want More

For John, BLUF:  It is still a long way to November 2016.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is from The Old Gray Lady, so you can assume that the Democrat Party Establishment is behind this message—"Obama’s Plans to Stop ISIS Leave Many Democrats Wanting More".  Reporters are Jennifer Steinhauer and Michael D Shear.  The dateline is Washington, on 8 December.  Here is the lede:

Many of President Obama’s Democratic allies in Congress say they do not believe he is being aggressive enough in confronting the terrorist threat of the Islamic State after last week’s attacks in California, undermining Americans’ sense of safety, especially among voters who will decide the party’s fate in elections next year.

Let us be fair.  The President has a strategy and he is following it.  To some degree his plan reflects the facts on the ground in the Middle East.  Syria and Iraq and not effective unified nation states.  If we put a lot of boots on the ground we need to be prepared to stay there a while.  I am not sure the American People want that.

Here is how The Military Times introduces its article, "Washington, Baghdad on different pages in fight against IS" (Ms Susannah George, AP, reporting):

A series of political spats that erupted in Baghdad over the past week surrounding foreign forces on Iraqi soil have exposed the increasing weakness of Iraq's central government and a growing disconnect between Washington and Baghdad in the U.S.-led coalition's fight against the Islamic State group.

That is not a good situation into which we should be introducing US forces, unless we are talking very large numbers of US forces.  Think six figures.

And, of course, there are other agendas being pursued.  Candidate Donald Trump has ripped the scab off the refugee issue and the migrant issue and it is resonating with many Americans.  Here is what the article says about the Democrat approach to dealing with that.

Senate Democrats are working to turn the conversation away from the Syrian refugees by pushing the issue of guns and the visa waiver program to the fore, though the measures on guns so far have proved fruitless.

But, that isn't working so well

But Democrats in both chambers said they needed the president to send a message to voters that he is in firm command of the fight against terrorism.  That will require Mr. Obama to do more — and to explain his actions more clearly, they said.

The Democrats are trying to round a square corner and it isn't working well.  That said, a lot could happen between now and the primaries (and the election) and, on the other hand, nothing could happen.  Either way, it will impact the voters.  And it will influence the non-voters, who may become active or may influence their voting friends and neighbors.

Regards  —  Cliff

The President Talks Terrorism

For John, BLUF:  The Fox Panel notwithstanding, not a bad speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The President's talk to the American People this evening, just after 2000.

At war with Terrorism, as the President asserts?  This is the one slip in this 13 minute talk from the Oval Office.  Terrorism is a tactic.  We need to better define the enemy than a tactic he uses.  The tactic is not a "center of gravity".  Here is a 35 page monograph on the topic.

We will prevail by being strong and smart.

"First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters", anywhere.

Second, we will continue to provide support for friendly (non-US) forces on the ground.

Third, we are working to cut off ISIL, sharing intelligence and cooperating with Muslim communities here and overseas.

Fourth, with American leadership, we are trying to end the war in Syria, so we can all focus on ISIL. (This hints at the idea that we may cut a deal with Russia that preserves Syrian President Assad.)

We continuously review our processes to see if we need to adapt.

Here at home we need to work together to solve problems.

Congress should pass a law that says those on no fly lists should not be able to purchase firearms.

We need to curtail the sale of high powered rifles.

We need to take a harder look at those coming to the US without Visas.

Congress should vote for a renewal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

We should NOT be drawn into a long ground war in Iraq or Syria.

We can not turn against each other by defining this as a war between America and Islam.  The vast majority of terror victims are Muslim.

An extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities and Muslims must speak out against this.  (This is an important step, in acknowledging that there is a problem within Islam, an extremist ideology spreading.)

We will prevail because we are on the right side of history.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

There was talk about gun control, but no discussion of curtailing the sale of pipes in places like Home Depot and Lowes.  That said, the President did acknowledge that the couple in the San Bernardino event did have a collection of pipe bombs.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rare Oval Office Speech

For John, BLUF:  The polls must not be going well.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Accountant, NeoNeoCon,♠ we have some predictions on the President's Speech this evening at 8:01 PM.

You can see the speech on the World Wide Web, here.

I am awaiting the Oval Office talk with both hope and trepidation.

Comments after the speech.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  She now lives in New England.

Islamophobia

For John, BLUF:  It isn't like we should avoid mentioning that the two people identified with the San Bernardino shootings didn't identify with Daesh.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Blogger Don Surber wants to know why Reporter Chuck Todd "gets away with stereotyping Americans as bigots?"  The very short item can be found here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff