The Democratic Candidates Do Their Best to Preserve ISIS | PJ Media
BY ROGER L SIMON DECEMBER 19, 2015
The candidates were most allergic to "boots on the ground." America wasn't going to be drawn again into a ground war in the Middle East. Yet there was no explanation how we could possibly win without troops. Nor was there an explanation of why the Muslim armies would suddenly coalesce against ISIS without us, without, in Lee Smith's famous words, "the strong horse" -- that is, without real U.S. on the ground participation.
The fact is they won't. And there will be no American victory, no defeat of ISIS, without our troops on the ground. Without the strong horse, nobody fights. Ask bin Laden. He knew. He was their strong horse, now it's al Baghdadi.
Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley looked clueless about how the Middle East works and they probably are. I would doubt they had read Smith's book or know much about that theory or anyone else's for that matter. I doubt too they would be able to answer serious questions about the roots of the Sunni-Shia conflict. The whole Islamic uprising is an inconvenience to them. They'd rather be talking about how bad Wall Street is.
For Hillary it's an embarrassment -- or should be. She's the woman who refused as head of the State Department to name Boko Haram (now pledged to ISIS) a terrorist organization at the very time they were raping and kidnapping girls in the name of Allah. Now she's telling us we have ISIS where we want it -- or something like that. Her remarks to that effect during the debate are being explained away or placed "in context" by Democrats, but that she could even claim something close to that is reprehensible. She and Obama are, if not the mother and father of ISIS, at least their aunt and uncle.
-go to links-
No comments:
Post a Comment