Do World Leaders Actually Know How to Respond to Terrorism?
April 12, 2017
NCPA Senior Fellow David Grantham writes at Townhall:
A vehicle attack in London. Another in Sweden. A subway bombing in Russia and attacks against Christians in Egypt. The attacks by jihadists just continue.
It seems like world leaders are completely out of ideas.
Here in America, Republican policymakers and terror experts told the public that we just needed a president willing to identify the threat. The Obama administration was the only obstacle to ultimate victory.
Now that the threat has been named (radical Islam), officials have been forced to fall back on their preferred method for action: engineer a solution that contains the exact ingredients necessary to please opposing opinions and inspire their political base -- an answer that will lead to decisive action everywhere and avoid unintended consequences anywhere. An impossible standard that can never be met.
The war against radical Islam might well become Obamacare for national security. Americans will continue to suffer, while elected officials dither.
War hawks try to explain away the absence of a plan by claiming that delicate geniuses are test-tubing the most complete, well-rounded approach to defeating jihadists. Leaders bicker over who can render the broadest definition of terrorism -- one that offends no one and saves everyone. When that's settled, "allies" in the Middle East will act offended at what the government believes to be the most inoffensive title possible.
Meanwhile, this hubris then manifests itself in the defense sector, where experts and industry claim they can build weaponry that will literally sniff out a jihadist among civilians and explode the bad guy dead, all the while dispersing candy to the innocent within the blast zone. They just need $50 billion and a 20 year contract.
Browse more articles on International Issues