NATO's obsolete, negotiating while Brussels burns

In the wake of the terror attacks at Brussels’ Zaventem Airport and a metro station in Maelbeek, the comments regarding diminishing America’s role in NATO appears nearly portentous, and might encourage ISIS’ growing footprint in Europe. Backing off from assisting undermanned allies, blaming costs when the real budget-busters are healthcare and entitlements, leaves the door wide open for anti-West terror. Isolationism never worked in the past, and certainly can’t now, especially if Trump, whose own business interests are tied to global economies, expects us to recover. “We will send a clear signal…” not that he’d stand for Israel, as Trump said to the AIPAC conference, but that the U.S. would see to itself, believing that letting the rest of the world burn would actually improve American lives. Basically, you can’t have it both ways, which is evidently how this candidate prefers things – trying to keep his high profits while ignoring the safety of countries that supply his cheap labor. Check Mexico’s violence and portage of illegals to the U.S. Immigration from muslim states, and others that funnel so-called refugees over their borders, must be severely restricted and closed in some cases, but it is not done in a vacuum. Partnering with the EU and NATO member states is essential to tracking potential terror cells, many that have already managed to set-up inside the U.S. as the number of current FBI investigations indicates. If the U.S. turns its back on leadership, who, then, will take on that role? Who is capable? And if we hand over free world leadership to others who have already proven to be lacking in keeping their countries safe, how much more difficult will it be to protect our own? What the Brussels attacks have brought to light is that Belgium and other European nations admit they haven’t the resources to investigate and eradicate potential terror threats inside their borders. No-Go zones have grown in Europe, and refusing to have a police presence in hardline muslim neighborhoods here (as Senator Ted Cruz suggests) leaves us vulnerable to the same terror, such as San Bernardino’s Christmas massacre. Virtually deserting the EU and other countries weakens the inter-reliant fabric of the international policing community in this age of easy travel.

The one strategy that Trump is consistent on stressing is his expertise at negotiating. What he is good at is pressuring businesses into financial settlements by threatening legal action. Unfortunately, this is not a workable tactic when dealing with terrorists. Even economic sanctions have shown to be of little effect to hamstring terror support or activity as Hamas, al Shabaab, Hezb’ollah, ISIS, Iran, etc. have expanded their reach despite restrictions. In contrast, Ted Cruz was practical in his AIPAC speech and the next day response to the Brussels attacks, insisting on strengthening U.S. support of Israel that Obama has let lag while funneling more funds to terror-sponsors than our espoused ally. Immediately after the ISIS-claimed attacks in Belgium, Cruz called for visa and immigration limits to be instated, and that the U.S. be involved in curtailing terror infiltration. Compare the lists of foreign policy advisors between the two candidates. Trump has called on the services of international energy lawyer George Papadopoulos, international energy magnate Carter Page, Senator Jeff Sessions, respected terror expert Walid Phares, former United States Inspector General Joe Schmitz and Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg. Cruz has among his counselors (which announcement a week prior to his opponent’s the media ignored): Elliott Abrams, former Asst. Sec. of State; Ilan Berman, Iran, Russia, and radical Islam expert; Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, Delta Force commander, ret.; Andrew McCarthy, former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney and islamist terror expert; Frank Gaffney, jr., an Asst. Sec. of Defense under President Reagan; Nile Gardiner, aide to P.M. Margaret Thatcher; Katharine Gorka, president of the Council on Global Security; etc. Add to the 23 members of his coalition former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton who has been advising Cruz for a year. Cruz appears to be attendant to the wisdom of scripture in assembling counselors, “Surely you need guidance to wage war, and victory is won through many advisers.” Proverbs 24:6. The other point of this proverb is noting there is a difference between negotiating peace and waging war. Negotiating peace before a show of strength in arms, which entails more than saber rattling, always ends in failure. Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” is a case in point. Negotiating with terrorists is viewed as capitulation and emboldens them. Force must be met with force, and reliance on the wisdom of many seasoned counselors is part of the equation. Sacrificing our children to condoning foreign, debasing mores to achieve “peace” invariably backfires. Lessening America’s association with NATO does nothing more than invite the enemy in through weakened neighbors. The old adage is, if you want something done right, do it yourself... and when it comes to protecting oneself, don’t delegate the duty to those insufficient to shoulder it. A. Dru Kristenev