by Boaz Bismuth
U.S. President Barack
Obama, at the beginning of his first term in office, asked that the
United States erase the term "Islamic terror" from its lexicon. Obama
did not want to tie terrorism -- which is a negative term -- to Islam,
so as not to offend the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world
within the framework of America's appeasement policies in the wake of
the George W. Bush era. Almost six years later, however, Obama, with no
other choice, is amassing the broadest possible coalition to wage a
military campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS).
During the recent NATO
summit in Wales, the light bulb finally went on for Obama: For years he
has managed to avoid problems and confrontations (Syria, Ukraine) and
"lead from behind" (Libya), but he has apparently understood it is
impossible to be the leader of the world's top superpower and always
just hope for the best.
On August 28, Obama
added an unflattering addendum to his presidency, when he admitted to
lacking, "as of now," a strategy for battling ISIS. America, to say the
least, did not enjoy hearing this while American journalists were being
beheaded in the Middle East. One week later and the U.S. president has a
strategy, even a coalition, with which to "degrade and ultimately
destroy" the radical Sunni terrorist organization. It still doesn't look
perfect, but it is the start of something. His media advisors did a
good job.
"We need strong
partners on the ground to defeat ISIS," declared Obama, who emphasized
he would not put U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. This is not the only
restriction he has imposed on himself. The U.S. also does not intend to
act in Syria, where ISIS controls at least seven provinces.
Obama is right in
seeking to include Arab and Muslim states in his coalition. ISIS is
undoubtedly a cancerous tumor, which threatens, first and foremost, the
Arab world from which it grew. Arab states, however, are so factious, so
suspicious, so afraid of the reaction in the streets -- but primarily
so untrusting of Obama (the Gulf States, namely Saudi Arabia) -- that
they will not rush to join his campaign.
The president believes
in the "strong forces" of the states in the region to do the job in the
field: The Iraqi army is supposed to cooperate with the Iranian army and
the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Syrian President Bashar Assad quickly
realized the opportunity and jumped all over it, offering his
assistance, which Washington and Paris promptly rejected. In actuality
though, the regimes in Syria and Iran are the first in line to feel the
Sunni threat posed by ISIS. The Islamic State is providing the Shiites
with a certificate of integrity.
Turkey can also
benefit. The country which first allowed terrorists to cross its borders
into Iraq, today finds itself a member of NATO on the side of the good
guys. ISIS has managed to completely turn the game on its head.
In the meantime,
perhaps the light bulb has turned on for the Europeans, as well: The
four French journalists abducted in Syria in June 2013 by ISIS
operatives and released on April 20, identified Mehdi Nemmouche, the
terrorist who perpetrated the deadly shooting attack at the Jewish
Museum in Brussels last May, as one of their captors. They told
reporters that when Nemmouche wasn't singing, he was abusing and
torturing his prisoners. We all remember what he did upon returning to
Europe and there are thousands more like him in Syria and Iraq. One day
they are expected to return. It is preferable for the Europeans -- and
for us -- that they do not.
Boaz Bismuth
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=9895
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment