Posted: 30 Mar 2016 01:39 PM PDT
If you’re keeping score, freeing Islamic terrorists from Gitmo
does not play into the hands of ISIS. Neither does bringing Syrians, many of
whom sympathize with Islamic terrorists, into our country. And aiding the
Muslim Brotherhood parent organization of ISIS does not play into the Islamic
group’s hands.
However
if you use the words “Islamic terrorism” or even milder derivatives such as
“radical Islamic terrorism”, you are playing into the hands of ISIS. If you
call for closer law enforcement scrutiny of Muslim areas before they turn
into Molenbeek style no-go zones or suggest ending the stream of new
immigrant recruits to ISIS in San Bernardino, Paris or Brussels, you are also
playing into the hands of ISIS.
And if you carpet bomb ISIS, destroy its headquarters and training camps,
you’re just playing into its hands. According to Obama and his experts, who
have wrecked the Middle East, what ISIS fears most is that we’ll ignore it
and let it go about its business. And what it wants most is for us to utterly
destroy it. Or as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau said, "If you
kill your enemies, they win."
But maybe if you surrender to them, then you win.
Tens of thousands of Muslim refugees make us safer. But using the words
“Muslim terrorism” endangers us. The more Muslims we bring to America, the
faster we’ll beat ISIS. As long as we don’t call it the Islamic State or ISIS
or ISIL, but follow Secretary of State John Kerry’s lead in calling it Daesh.
Because terrorism has no religion. Even when it’s shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.
Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it. This cunning approach
allowed ISIS to seize large chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a
J.V. team in line with his claim that, “We defeat them in part by saying you
are not strong, you are weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still
attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was strong by actually
winning land and wars.
Europe and the United States decided to prove that we were not at war with
Islam by taking in as many Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less
terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more terrorism.
Every single counterintuitive strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism has
been tried. And it has failed. Overthrowing “dictators” turned entire
countries into terrorist training camps. Bringing Islamists to power in
Egypt, Libya and Tunisia led directly to attacks on American diplomatic
facilities. The Muslim Brotherhood showed no gratitude to its State
Department allies. Instead its militias and forces either aided the attackers
or stood by and watched while taking bets on the outcome.
Islamic terrorism has followed an intuitive pattern of cause and effect.
There’s a reason that the counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic
terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t work. They make no sense.
Instead they all depend on convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to
Jihadist organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by showing what nice
people we are. Meanwhile they also insist that we can’t use the words
“Islamic terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs who will join Al
Qaeda and ISIS the moment we associate terrorism with the I-word.
There are contradictions there that you can drive a tank through.
The counterintuitive strategy assumes that Islamic terrorism will only exist
if we use the I-word, that totalitarian Jihadist movements want democracy and
that our best allies for fighting Islamic terrorism are people from the same
places where Islamic terrorism is a runaway success. And that we should
duplicate the demographics of the countries where Islamic terrorism thrives
in order to defeat it.
The West’s counterterrorism strategy makes less sense than the ravings of
most mental patients. The only thing more insane than the counterintuitive
strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism is the insistence that the intuitive
strategy of keeping terrorists out and killing them is what terrorists want.
If you believe the experts, then Islamic terrorists want us to stop them from
entering Europe, America, Canada and Australia. They crave having their
terrorists profiled by law enforcement on the way to their latest attack. And
they wish we would just carpet bomb them as hard as we can right now.
When ISIS shoots up Paris or Brussels, it’s not really trying to kill
infidels for Allah. Instead it’s setting a cunning trap for us. If we react
by ending the flow of migrants and preventing the next attack, ISIS wins. If
we police Muslim no-go zones, then ISIS also wins. If we deport potential
terrorists, ISIS still wins.
But if we let ISIS carry out another successful attack, then ISIS loses. And
we win. What do we win?
It depends. A concert hall full of corpses. Marathon runners with severed
limbs. Families fleeing the airport through a haze of smoke. Only by letting
ISIS kill us, do we have any hope of beating ISIS.
Politicians and experts claim that ISIS is insane. It’s not insane. It’s
evil. Its goals are clear and comprehensible. The objectives of the Islamic
State are easy to intuitively grasp. Our leaders and experts are the ones who
are out of their minds. They may or may not be evil, but they are utterly
insane. And they have projected their madness on Islamic terrorists who are
downright rational compared to them.
Unlike our leaders, Islamic terrorists don’t confuse victory and defeat. They
aren’t afraid that they’ll win. They don’t want us to kill them or deport
them. They don’t care whether we call them ISIS or Daesh. They don’t derive
their Islamic legitimacy from John Kerry or a State Department Twitter
account. They get it from the Koran and the entire rotting corpus of Islamic
law that they seek to impose on the world.
Our leaders are the ones who are afraid of winning. They distrust the
morality of armed force and borders. They disguise that distrust behind
convoluted arguments and counterintuitive rationales. Entire intellectual
systems are constructed to explain why defeating ISIS is exactly what ISIS
wants.
After the San Bernardino shootings, Obama insisted that, “Our success won’t
depend on tough talk or abandoning our values... That’s what groups like ISIL
are hoping for.” But ISIS does not care whether Obama talks tough, even if
it’s only his version of tough talk in which he puffs out his chest and says
things like, ”You are not strong, you are weak.” It is not interested in
Obama’s “right side of history” distortion of American values either.
ISIS is not trying to be counterintuitive. It’s fighting to win. And our
leaders are fighting as hard as they can to lose.
The counterintuitive strategy is not meant to fight terror, but to convince
the populace that winning is actually losing and losing is actually winning.
The worse we lose, the better our plan is working. And when we have
completely lost everything then we’ll have the terrorists right where we want
them.
Just ask the dead of Brussels, Paris, New York and a hundred other places.
This isn’t a plan to win. It’s a plan to confuse the issue while losing. It’s
a plan to convince everyone that what looks like appeasement, defeatism,
surrender and collaboration with the enemy is really a brilliant
counterintuitive plan that is the only possible path to a lasting victory
over Islamic terrorism.
But intuitive beats counterintuitive. Winning intuitively beats losing
counterintuitively. Counterintuitively dead terrorists multiply, but
intuitively they stay dead. Counterintuitively, not discussing the problem is
the best way to solve it. Intuitively, you solve a problem by facing it.
Counterintuitively, collaborating with the enemy is patriotism. Intuitively,
it’s treason.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment