When reflecting on global issues, it’s good to consider their local equivalents to determine how they could be better handled. Basically, adopt a keep-it-simple-stupid approach to understanding how an issue should be handled. For example, how the U.S. is dealing with ISIS, or should be dealing with ISIS, can be compared with how law enforcement might deal with a motorcycle or street gang taking over a neighborhood.
I employed this tactic when assessing President Obama’s reasoning for entering into what sounds like such a dangerous nuclear agreement with the Islamofascist tyrants ruling Iran. A few days ago, a pundit on a news program, I can’t recall who, said he is convinced that the poor agreement is a result of an avoid-war-at-all-costs position the president has adopted.
Consider that for all practical purposes, the West, including the U.S., is effectively allowing the ISIS’ atrocities. This includes the destruction of irreplaceable antiquities and the torture, rape and murders of Middle-Eastern Christians, minority religion adherents, and non-compliant Muslims.
What if America, under a strong leader, rallied the civilized world against ISIS? It seems, even to my ordinary citizen sensibilities, that the Western powers, along with their Arab allies, could efficiently defeat the blasphemous rogue army. However, the president seems to be content to bide his time until his term expires. This will ensure the next president will have to deal with the consequences of his “Chamberlainian” appeasement of Iran, ISIS and other world bullies.
Let’s return to reducing the global issue to the local level. Such a strategy of Iran appeasement and hesitation with ISIS, won’t avoid violence forever. Iran will cheat, and, eventually, someone will have to stop ISIS. After all, is there any evidence that either foe is going to stop on its own?
The prudent move would be to, as the cliché informs us, nip it in the bud. Nipping Iran’s nuclear program before they gain a nuclear weapon and the ISIS rampage in the bud is becoming much more difficult as the movements grow. Just the other day ISIS issued its first Islamic caliphate state coins. In a bold insult to the West, especially the U.S., the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were portrayed on two of the coin’s—both, of course, were attacked on 9/11.
I’m afraid, like Neville Chamberlain, Barack Obama is content to sit back and watch his successor, hopefully, like Churchill, make the necessary and courageous diplomatic and, if necessary, military moves to save the Middle East–perhaps the world–from these evils.
Sadly, as with Prime Minister Chamberlain, President Obama also had it within his power to prevent untold misery, destruction and death. But, the true irony here is that many believe President Obama has also chosen this hesitation, appeasement strategy to preserve his legacy. Instead, he may find that he was chiseling his dubious legacy in granite.