STRATEGY

So aggressive terrorism IS reason to go to war...just as long as you do not characterize it as "war"?

The voices who cautioned that we should never poke a hornet's nest lest we get stung...have been overruled by ISIS' disturbing developments.

Now the nation is leading our leader who has finally determined these guys aren't twenty-first century stingers and they won't listen to reason.

Last Wednesday night we got the plan.  Someone wrote a speech that was patriotic and full of American exceptionalism and strength.  It was just the tone that the polls ordered.

Did the President mean it?  It did conflict with just about everything he has said all along...downgrading, renaming, and mocking ISIS' threat...and even saying we couldn't beat them but we'd just manage them.

There was one encouraging bit of news that we would go into Syria, but the rest of the "strategy" is convoluted.

1.  He said we were at war at
the same time the Secretary of State called it a "conflict" (but has since said "OK, if you want to call it war, it's war") and the National Security Advisor (Susan Rice) called it a "sustained counterterrorism campaign".  Then there's the Vice-President who got all wild-eyed, hollering about the gates of hell.  Could we all get on the same page?

In listening to a montage of audio clips from the media the next day, it was striking that THEY all read from the same script, using exactly the same words, "reluctant warrior".

Some might point out that he may be reluctant, but we ARE bombing.  Yes, the total since it began is now 160something.  That divides out to less than three a day.  Two trucks here, a nest of tents there...hardly serious shock and awe or comprehensive strategy.

2.  Of course HIS war will be different and not evil like George Bush's war.  The difference? There won't be boots on the ground.  Huh? We already HAVE boots there.

Tell me what strategy can bomb without ears and eyes on the ground?  What strategy puts men on the ground WITH permission to defend themselves, but doesn't expect conflict?  What strategy asks others to take the fight while we fight from above?

3.  Besides, what others?  Who will step up to fight for us?

As he looks over his shoulder and calls "Who's with us?"...the
coalition of the willing seem reluctant  to join the reluctant.

Who wants to link arms with a country that draws impotent red lines?  Waffles with Russia?  Indecisively stalls and goes flippy floppy with NATO partners?

4.  Now (so he says) we will arm the Syrian rebels.  His advisors called for that a year ago and he has talked about doing it, but sending MRE's doesn't count.  Talking and doing are different.

It would be nice if we could keep our word and arm the Kurds, too.  They have also been waiting for help for some time.  The Kurds have worn white hats all along and their Peshmerga fighters have proven themselves against the terrorists.

So our unlikely strategy is that while we fly over, the Free Syrian army plus the Iraqi army (who we trained for 10 years, but who never graduated from "stand and fight" school) will take on ISIS.  Australia is IN (gotta love the Aussies), while everyone else shuffles their feet.

5.  We also were told that these guys are not Islamic because no religion kills innocents.

Well, the Koran passages apparently don't view infidels as innocents.

6.  Inexplicably, our idea of justice is bringing killers over here to a courtroom.

Benghazi showed the ridiculousness of that idea.  We can't get to the crime scene to obtain evidence or get to witnesses to be interviewed.  One mad dog brought to justice does not have any effect on the problem...
except to elevate him to martyrdom.

Do we really think a court case will cause the rest to cower?

No, the hornets are out of the nest and they come regardless of strikes against the nest.  Why?  They live and breathe their murderous life purpose.

This LINK gives context to the long-running struggle which festers when "radical Islam" gets a toehold of strength.  As the link points out, Muslims have come close to their goal of world domination several times along history's  timeline...without any provocation from either the Jews or George Bush.

The Bible speaks of "feet who run to do evil" and "feet swift to shed blood".  Is there a better definition of ISIS?  The longer we dally, the longer their numbers multiply.  Top counterterrorism officials testified to Congress just hours before the President spoke on Wednesday.   They put ISIS' numbers @10k, but then THE VERY NEXT DAY another CIA analysis came in at 20-31k.  Apparently the world is full of wanna-be jihadists who long to shed blood for the sheer enjoyment of it.

This whole illustration calls us to choose sides.  How could it be any clearer?  Shall we make room for a strange multicultural affection that puts all "religions" on an even platform?

One side kills for an imaginary god who is pleased with the blood of anyone who will not bend the knee.  The other side lives for the God who is pleased with the blood of His Son, who willingly gave His blood to buy our ticket to heaven.

Americans want an ISIS strategy that will keep them safe.  That's what we pay the President to do and we pray he will do it.

But our real safety comes in an eternal strategy named Jesus.