"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy

It is maddening to hear the universal cacophony of voices talking about "Terrorism" as our enemy.  Such misdirection and/or sloppiness is embarrassing.

Terrorism (causing terror) is exactly like "carpet bombing", "gorilla warfare", or "flanking."  It is a tactic used by nations, groups and individuals in an attempt to accomplish something; the "something" does not have to be cogent or even sane.

The mass murderer who kills children in a school is using "terror" as a tactic; we don't understand it if he is insane, but it is his chosen tactic instead of standing in the middle of the road and waving a sign.  A homeless women engages in an act of Terror when she drives down a sidewalk, killing folks she doesn't even know.  A person who snipes at people driving cars by on an Interstate road is combining two tactics: gorilla warfare and terror.  I could go on and on, but the point is made:  Terror is a tactic...it is a means to do any one or more of many goals.  The goal is not particularly important.

Terror, when used by an individual, may have a goal.  It may not.  A mentally ill person may engage in a terrorist act and have no goal.  Mental illness was and remains the enemy.

A bank robber may shoot up, wound and kill many in the robbing of the bank.  The terror of multiple wounds and killings is for the purpose of causing fear and confusion and to make escape easier and more certain.  The Criminal Act was and remains the enemy.

When an extended group adopts the tactics of Terror for a purpose, it helps to identify the enemy, and the source that created that group as an enemy.  It does NOT help to focus on tactics; I remember the focus on the gorilla warfare of the North Vietnamese instead of on the source of their vision of the United States as their enemy.  What a waste of effort...and we failed to achieve our goals in that conflict.

Currently we have ISIS (ISIL or whatever other derogatory name is currently in vogue) as our enemy.  Their tactics include infiltration, conventional military warfare, psychological warfare, as well as Public Relations efforts in recruitment, terrorist acts,  and many others.  All of these are tactics.

Why does ISIS see the West in general and the United States in particular as the enemy?  They say (and it behooves us to listen to our enemy when the consistently declare why the hate us and avoid trying to re-define it in terms that we find comforting (and, most harmful, misleading), that we are destroying their their way of life, bringing immoral and unacceptable behavior to their countries, interfering with their way of life and trying to erode their lifestyle, indoctrinating their youth with the immoral and wasteful ways of the west and showing them and their brand of civilization no respect.  They also will quote the commands of their religion, Islam, as contained in the Qur'an, that they conquer the world and convert all to Islam.  Dying in this cause is seen as a guarantee of entry to Paradise, hence the willingness to engage in the terrorist tactic of body bombs and mass killings when death to the perpetrators is all but guaranteed.

Any reasonable person bothering to ask questions, read, and analyse all of this cannot escape the finding that the self-declared enemy attempting to fight, kill, and terrorize the west and the United States is Islamic in nature and most specifically involves devout extremist Muslims who have decided that they need to act now to save their perception of what civilization should be: Islamic.

There are Muslims in name only, just as there are Christians in name only; these folks claim the title and show up on special occasions and actually value the heredity of Islam...but neither group actually is dedicated to live the life that either the Bible or the Qur'an dictates.  They are not enemies of anything other than having their lives interfered with by the folks who comprise ISIS.  Still others have fully embraced the qualities and practices of the western world for various reasons:  women because of the freedom to make their own decisions and dress as they wish, the LGBT community because it avoids being put to death...and others.

The West in general and the United States in particular doesn't want to acknowledge the truth of what is presented here for a variety of reasons.  A main one is that the west has become afraid of confrontation and developed a distaste for stress of any sort; I call it the "pc movement."  How dare anyone make us feel "uncomfortable."  ...or "wrong." ...or put in an unwanted position of having to actually "do" something!  Like Neville Chamberlain, they just want to believe that everyone really just wants "to get along."  Wanting and acknowledging the truth are often not co-existent.

I wonder if we will ever see our President or any world leader acknowledge, and identify the enemy instead of repeating over and over references to the "behind the lines tactics?"  I am starting to doubt it.  Even if they called the tactics of terror a form of gorilla warfare it would be an improvement, because it would make everyone consciously aware that we have avoided actually putting a name on, and thus identifying, the real enemy.

That would be the start of what perhaps could become victory.

President Obama...and ISIS

At the moment, many are concerned about the ongoing actions of the group known as ISIS (or, as the current administration curiously labels it, ISIL).  There are really only two major concerns: 1) why the apparent delay or failure of this administration to have a strategy already prepared for a group who's existence and power is no surprise; and 2) what should that strategy be.

The first answer is fairly straightforward. Mr Obama has shown himself to have little or no interest in devoting the hard work necessary to be an effective President. There is a reason all of our Presidents have looked so worn down after their period in the Oval Office. It is hard, worrisome work. Mr. Obama prefers raising money, making speeches (often including totally unacceptable lies and never followed up on by hard work to make promises a reality), and playing golf while enjoying the image and perks of being President. Also, while he might have proven that he can play well with others, he also has shown a very thin skinned inability to work well with others. He simply doesn't want to do the work of being President, and doesn't want to be hounded or found fault with for that lack of work.

The second question is much harder: what to do. This country...and the world, really...has often shown little initial interest in people being subjected to genocidal and other treatment. The Nazi's are on point, and there are many instances on the African continent and in Asia that come to mind. We need a personal threat that smacks of reality or an actual attack to get our attention and inspire purposeful action. I would think that a lot of governmental people are very nervous about the depleted condition of our military, so I think the first step should be a re-evaluation of needs and purposes and a concomitant authorization of funds to make our military capable of responding to any number of threats.

Additionally, our military and Homeland Security should already have (and if not, to quickly develop) plans on how degrade the military abilities of ISIS (or, as the administration prefers to call them, for reasons unfathomable to me, ISIL) and screen those coming to the U.S. (including finally a securitization of our borders so that we actually know who is arriving) to prevent individual terror acts. And finally, it would seem obvious that any comments that are made by the President...or his "people"...should avoid phrases that seem limiting. One doesn't have to threaten; just indicate a willingness to do "what must be done" to protect and defend. Declaring that no military action involving "boots on the ground" may be true...but you are absolutely insane to verbalize it. Let those who would harm us worry about what we will and will not do...don't hand it to them on a silver platter.

Anyone have a better idea?