LEADING FROM BEHIND, AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Nice was lucky.

With 84 dead so far (the number will almost certainly rise) and over 100 injured – some grotesquely – how can I call that lucky?

Because, given the size of the crowds and what the radical Islamist subhuman murderer intended, it could have been far worse.

The fact that 84 dead and 100+ injured can be characterized as lucky tells you something about the world we currently live in.

And that, in turn, tells you that somewhere, somehow, someone has to DO something about it.  Someone has to take the lead and fight the war against radical Islam.

Who will it be?

There was a time the world turned to the United States to take the lead in fights like this.  But that was before the era of Obama, when leading meant actually doing something.

In the era of Obama, however, we have been treated to 7 1/2 years of “leading from behind”.  And what have we gotten from it?

-The emergence, then enormous growth of ISIS (ISIL if you happen to be Barack Obama – who never misses a chance to posture that he’s smarter than you are),

-The resurgence of al-qaeda,

-The resurgence of the taliban,

-And the continued, unfettered operations of similar groups around the world, such as boko harem, hezbollah, hamas, etc. etc. etc. etc.

These are the people who kill innocents by the thousands every year.  The people who joyously opened fire in the Paris last year.  In Brussels, and San Bernardino, and Orlando, and now Nice, this year.  With a virtual 100% guarantee of more to come.

And what has President Obama done about it?  Shot off a few drones, to kill a few “high ranking commandos” who are easily replaced?

That is fighting a war?  No, that is conceding defeat.

What about:

-Leveling Raqqa, Syria, which we know to be ISIS’s base of operations?

-Bombing the oil trucks ISIS uses to sell the oil it now has control of to willing markets?

-Severely sanctioning the willing markets ISIS sells that oil to?

There are just three things we can do.  But we will not do any of them.  Because President Obama is “leading from behind”.

Fight back in the war with radical Islam – a war that we are in even if Mr. Obama refuses to recognize as much?  He won’t even call them the radical Islamists they are.  Why?  Because, we are told, this would be offensive to all Muslims.

Are you kidding me?  If Barack Obama buys into this incredibly twisted BS – which he apparently does – then it is HIM who offend Muslims.  Why?  Because, by doing so, he puts all Muslims in the same “you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all” boat.

To call groups like ISIS and al qaeda radical Islamists is to separate them from the rest of Islam.  It specifically establishes that this is what they do, not what other Muslims do.

But by avoiding this term on the grounds that it will offend Muslims in general, is to assume all Muslims accept what they do; that all Muslims are OK with radical Islamist goals.  It equates radical Islam with all Muslims.

But this logic is lost on a man who called the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” and exploited the Orlando massacre to push for gun control (as if gun laws would have stopped omar manteen from what he did).

I don’t know who the next President will be from among our two distasteful alternatives, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But I believe that, while the extent to which they will fight back against radical Islam may differ (with Trump probably being far more reactive to terrorist acts than Clinton would), either of them will provide a major improvement over the disastrous, useless President we have now.

The sooner the better.