Scarier Than the Parris Attacks is the Democrats Passivity

 

IBDEditorials.com

President Obama speaks at a news conference following the G-20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, on Monday. AP

War On Terror: Even more terrifying than the Paris attacks is how President Obama and the Democrats running to replace him won't treat them as a wake-up call.

'If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond" the Mideast, "including to the United States," Obama said of the Islamic State 14 months ago. "Could pose," not "do pose."

The president now contends that we have not left ISIS unchecked in the months since. And yet somehow the terror organization he dismissed as a JV team managed a sophisticated, coordinated spree of attacks in the heart of Paris, leaving at least 129 dead.

In Turkey on Monday, Obama defended his "long-term campaign" with its "setbacks" and "successes," calling Paris "a terrible and sickening setback."

Translation: You win some, you lose some. But "there has been progress," he assured us. "In Iraq and Syria, ISIL controls less territory than it did before."

According to Obama, we "try to shrink the amount of territory they control to defeat their narrative," eschewing "routine military tactics." And the alternative to "routine military tactics"?

"We'll continue to stand with leaders in Muslim communities .. . to discredit ISIL's warped ideology." Plus, we'll give "humanitarian aid to the Syrian people" and "accept more refugees" in the U.S. And "we've begun to see some modest progress on the diplomatic front."

Finally, the commander-in-chief's big new move: A new agreement to "streamline the process by which we share intelligence and operational military information with France."

Mieux vaut tard que jamais — better late than never. Maybe we'd have some intelligence worth sharing with the French if we were capturing and interrogating ISIS leaders and operatives instead of droning them dead.

"We have the finest military in the world," Obama acknowledged. But U.S. ground forces could only "temporarily clear out ISIL," and it would mean "a permanent occupation of these countries," he cautioned.

Funny how we were able to more than "temporarily clear out" the Nazis and Japanese when it was clear that we had to do more.

Meanwhile, in CBS' Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton insisted, "It cannot be an American fight" against ISIS. Will it take an ISIS attack here before she sees it as "an American fight"?

Bernie Sanders told us, "Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism," and "Muslim countries are going to have to lead the effort" in the war against terrorism. Martin O'Malley recommended "a whole-of-government approach with sustainable development (and) diplomacy."

GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio made more sense on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, recommending that we invoke NATO's Article 5, which treats an attack on one NATO nation as an attack on all and authorizes a collective armed response. NATO invoked Article 5 the day after 9/11.

Before the war on terror comes back to the homeland, it's time we started taking ISIS seriously and stopped pretending Obama's absence of a strategy is working.