The Orlando Massacre and Foreign Policy
by Tom Donelson on June 14, 2016 at 11:17 AM
The Orlando massacre simply reinforces what we already know but won’t acknowledge, we are dealing with an enemy who hides among us fueled by a hateful ideology. Folks trotted out the usual post-massacre talking points about gun control and moratorium of Muslim immigration into this country, but mass shootings have occurred in France, where gun control is far stricter than here and Omar Mateen was a United States citizen born here. Present gun control laws would not have kept Mateen from getting a gun; and even if we did copy France's laws, does anyone believe Mateen would not have found a way to arm himself just as terrorists did in France?
The first thing is that we need our leaders to utter the words "Islamic terrorist" since that is what these guys are, Islamic terrorists, and it is time to recognize the other reality: many Muslims living here and in Europe believe in Islamic terrorism and the establishment of a Caliphate here. They don’t buy into a Constitutional rule of law but a theocratic society run by the Sharia. Glen Reynolds observed, “We also need to be clear about what it is we’re fighting. We’re not fighting Islam as such. Many good Muslims are horrified by this violence. But we are fighting the jihadist strain of Islam, and unfortunately quite a few Muslims view that strain as legitimate. We can’t allow ourselves to be blinded to this reality, unless we want to see jihadist attacks like this- which have, sadly, become normal in the past years- continue and increase.”
As Reynolds observed that there were warning signs with the San Bernardino shooters, neighbors didn’t call the police for fears of being deemed prejudice against Muslims, and there were warning signs against Mateen but not enough evidence to proceed further. Even the military didn’t act when Nidel Hassan uttered Islamist propaganda routinely before he proceeded to shoot up Fort Hood. The failure to see the threat that militant Islamics pose and enunciate it is a significant factor.
There are moves we can do and as Reynolds suggested, we might begin to “interrupt the flow of radicalizing propaganda at the source: ISIL and various other jihadist outfits need to be neutralized or destroyed. These organizations pursue a deliberate strategy of radicalizing Muslims in Western countries to turn them into terrorists, and they operate networks of sympathizers throughout the USA.”
Another aspect is to continue the fracking revolution as we are now producing more oil than the Saudi’s as Reynolds noted, “We don’t really need their oil anymore, so they need to be told to put a stop to this sort of support or else.”
During this election we might want to remember those who not only refuse to identify our threat but whose policies led to this fiasco. It was Obama who pulled out our troops when Iraq was still stable and his negotiations with Iran allowed Iran to establish its own hegemony. ISIS barely had forces in the hundreds when Obama took office, now we have a third of Iraq and a good portion of Syria.
Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when the troops were removed and the Iranian negotiations began so she had a hand in the policies that led to present instability of the Middle East, so why should we trust her with our national security? Unless she is willing to abandon the policy that led us here, she is part of the problem, not the solution. Trump supported the invasion of Iraq and Clinton’s Libya before he opposed them, and will voters view if Donald Trump fully comprehends the past mistakes and trust him to protect us? We will have to ask would a non-interventionist like Gary Johnson be willing to use military actions if required?
At least 50 lay dead because their lifestyle displeased an Islamic Jihadist and these murders were not a random act but a result of a hateful ideology. If a candidate can’t even admit this, should voters trust them with our national security?