Barack Obama's never been one to take any problem seriously if he can find a way not to - provided, of course, it doesn't benefit politically to take it seriously. Obama decided a long time ago that he would not commit to all-out warfare against ISIS, which is why he not only refuses to even consider ground troops but also proposed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that expressly forbids it in any sustained manner.
That's not how you defeat an enemy. That's how you avoid having to really try.
And since he isn't interested in fighting, he has to come up with justifications for his unseriousness. This video is two weeks old but it's especially pertinent given what ISIS has done since, particularly the mass beheadings of 21 Christians.
There's a report out of Iraq today from the BBC that they've just burned 45 more people alive. The details are a little sketchy and we're praying it's not true, but does anyone seriously doubt that ISIS is capable of it?
ISIS has overrun huge parts of Iraq and Syria, and there is absolutely no limit to the barbarism they're willing to commit against innocent people. So how does Obama assess the seriousness of the threat they pose? Hey, chillax, maybe they can behead and burn people, but they can't run schools!
Now if Obama's argument is that we shouldn't worry about ISIS invading the United States and taking over the country, well of course, but that's about the dumbest argument anyone could ever make? Al Qaeda couldn't do that either. Neither could Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or any of the rest of them. The Soviet Union never had the capacity to do that either.
That's how you define a threat?
Does Obama understand the implications of ISIS destablizing the Middle East region as they are now doing? Does he recognize the risks this poses both economically and geopolitically? Does Obama recognize the seriousness represented by the prospect of ISIS sleeper cells in the United States? You don't have to take over the country to pose a threat to security. You don't have to have the ability to "win the hearts and minds of people" to destablize a society.
Obama is a classic leftist in the sense that he doesn't think we should fight anyone unless our very existence is threatened (and even then . . .), so why overreact to ISIS's brutality? Why "play whack-a-mole" fighting terrorists like ISIS who can't come over here and set up ISIScare or run a teachers' union?
By the way, never forget that part of Obama's motivation to downplay the threat is the fact that ISIS could never have taken so much of Iraq in the first place if he hadn't refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement to maintain a presence in Iraq. He didn't take the issue seriously in 2011. He won't take it seriously now. He never will. And America wasn't taking these issues seriously enough when they elected this guy.
What say we not make an even worse mistake next time?
