Because President Obama is weak in his foreign policy, ISIS/ISIL terrorists remain strong and have continued murdering mass numbers of civilians. The attacks in Paris are the latest in a long line of terrorist acts committed by that group. The element enabling their continued attacks is Obama’s exclusive reliance on air power, which, by itself, is an ineffective strategy. In the past, Obama has said that he wants to avoid fighting a ground war with the terrorists and wants to “work with” our allies. As a result, ISIS continues growing stronger, since you can not defeat an aggressive enemy solely through air power. Air power was meant to reinforce ground assaults on the enemy. Obama’s use of air power alone has led US-allied nations to using their own, usually weaker, militaries to fight ISIS terrorists. In the case of Iraq, they lost.
They lost one of their recent battles due to having less training and fewer resources than more prosperous countries, like America. They also did not have the support of the US military. Nor has the US, under Obama’s direction, become “the leader” in such battles.
However, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris provide more “proof” of the folly of Obama’s sole use of air power in fighting ISIS. As Damian Paletta and Philip Shishkin reported in their Wall Street Journal article, Obama stated hours before the attacks that ISIS had been ‘contained’ because of drone strikes and Iraqi Kurdish soldiers. However, a few hours later, ISIL struck at the Paris music venue in France. Therefore, ISIL has not been “contained”, they merely spread to countries other than Iraq and Syria. In addition, ISIL still has bases in Raqqa, Syria and Iraq. From the Paris attacks, we can conclude that Obama’s plan to use air power and drone strikes without using our military units is sheer stupidity. It’s a poor strategy that reflects Obama’s ignorance of war strategy and his leftwing sympathy towards terrorists fighting “western imperialism”.
Obama’s failure to weaken ISIS results from failure to create and utilize the key ingredient: saboteur groups. By “saboteur groups” this writer means a small group of soldiers, spies and saboteurs who can infiltrate the different cultures in which these Islamic radicals live, then “seek and destroy” them. The benefits of using such a group are that it matches the terrorists’ “small group” structure and can use ISIL’s own unconventional tactics against them. However, Obama and his administration have not implemented that particular approach. That is evidenced by ISIL’s continued strength in executing terrorist attacks. And Obama never said he would use “saboteur groups”. Their use is still a good idea as it would involve some aspects of the military, like Marines, Navy Seals and others. But using “saboteur groups” would not require utilizing the entire military nor require conventional warfare.
Now that ISIS has threatened to attack America’s public places like they did in Paris, it is even more crucial that the Obama Administration wake up, go on the offensive and use saboteur groups. Even mercenary groups would be an improvement over Obama’s current failed policy. It is also imperative that the Administration explicitly designates radical Islam/radical Islamists as the enemy that must be defeated.
While employing saboteur groups is important, their use must not occur in a vacuum. The Obama Administration must coordinate their use with
Preventing Syrian refugees and others from illegally entering into America. The more foreigners can sneak into the country, the more they can bypass government investigation into their pasts. That, in turn, makes it likelier that the occasional bunch of terrorists can sneak in.
Wage propaganda warfare to win over minds, turn people against Islamic terrorist groups, and consequently weaken their recruitment efforts,
Sabotage their funding and other support by destroying groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (a major supporter of Islamic terrorist groups) and the drug cartels that also fund Islamic terrorists.
Punish, and increase punishments, against Islamic dictatorships, like Iran, while getting the international community to pressure them. That will show dictatorships that supporting terror groups, like Iran does its proxies, will carry with it grave consequences.
Any time Hezballah and Hamas strike Israel, the Iranian dictatorship and Palestine must be held accountable and be made to lose their standing with the international community. We must recall that Palestinians have allowed Hamas terrorists to enter their political system and have allowed them to operate violently. In short, the international climate must be “hazardous” to the support of terrorists/terrorism.
In addition to the above, the Obama administration must also
Wage cyber warfare against terrorist groups (if practical) and against the rogue regimes that support them.
That will be another way to weaken our country’s enemies and make any military or “saboteur” violence that much more effective. Using espionage, the US government must also manipulate different terrorists and turn them against one another. The current competition between al Queda and their ISIS offshoot is ripe for manipulating both sides into killing one another.
Until we do the above, ISIS and other Islamic terrorists will get stronger and murder more people in foreign countries and in America.
Because President Obama is weak in his foreign policy, ISIS/ISIL terrorists remain strong and have continued murdering mass numbers of civilians. The attacks in Paris are the latest in a long line of terrorist acts committed by that group. The element enabling their continued attacks is Obama’s exclusive reliance on air power, which, by itself, is an ineffective strategy. In the past, Obama has said that he wants to avoid fighting a ground war with the terrorists and wants to “work with” our allies. As a result, ISIS continues growing stronger, since you can not defeat an aggressive enemy solely through air power. Air power was meant to reinforce ground assaults on the enemy. Obama’s use of air power alone has led US-allied nations to using their own, usually weaker, militaries to fight ISIS terrorists. In the case of Iraq, they lost.
They lost one of their recent battles due to having less training and fewer resources than more prosperous countries, like America. They also did not have the support of the US military. Nor has the US, under Obama’s direction, become “the leader” in such battles. 
