http://nypost.com/2014/09/21/obamas-half-hearted-war-on-terror/Obama’s half-hearted war on terror
By Michael Goodwin
September 21, 2014 | 2:51am
The quote of the week comes from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. Noting that criticism of surveillance programs forced the government to “throttle back,” he told The Washington Post that means “we are accepting more risk.”
Tapping a deep well of sarcasm, he continued: “We are supposed to keep the country safe, predict anticipatory intelligence, with no risk, and no embarrassment if revealed, and without a scintilla of jeopardy to privacy of any domestic person or foreign person. We call that ‘immaculate collection.’ ”
Bingo!
Clapper’s mission-impossible statement is more than justified, and not just in matters of intelligence gathering. He might have been talking about the public’s view of fighting terrorism, too.
Americans are against terrorism, wholeheartedly. And want to do something about it — halfheartedly.
As such, the public has been in sync with the president, meaning we have the government we deserve.
Barack Obama’s heart was never in the war on terror, and he burst onto the national scene with an anti-Iraq War riff. He called it a “dumb war,” a phrase that echoes still in his foreign-policy slogan of “don’t do stupid stuff.” The latest declaration, “No boots on the ground,” is cut from the same cloth. As faculty-lounge wordsmiths go, he’s top shelf.
Voters were with him big time in 2008, and a majority stayed with him in 2012 as he promised to get out of Afghanistan, too. He had OK’d the assassination of Osama bin Laden, a fact he waved like a bloody scalp, and it shielded him from direct hits after the Benghazi terror attack.
His mistake, or his latest mistake, was that he began to take his Houdini-like escapes for granted, and thus was gob-smacked when the “war-weary nation” suddenly wanted a tougher president after the Islamic State beheaded two Americans. In a flash, the usually nimble president was way out of step with the country.
Yet Obama again proved himself a cynical politician worthy of a fickle public. After some flub-a-dubs, he announced a strategy that is true to his core. It is neither-nor.
It is neither a strategy for victory, nor a strategy for doing nothing. Like a man taking a shower while wearing a raincoat, he put America back into the fight without a commitment to win.
Military types say his big goal and his puny tools are a mismatch, which could mean he has been too clever by half. It’s likely he is underestimating the terrorists’ lust for blood and overestimating his ability to fool voters into thinking he is resolute.
If the terrorists are serious about creating their caliphate, and if we do not become serious about stopping them, Obama could remain out of step for the rest of his term. If things go badly enough, he could be tagged as the president who lost the war on terror.
Then again, that, too, depends on the capricious public. If the lately rediscovered demand for a strong American role in the world has staying power, both parties will have to join Obama in playing catch-up. Congress and the 2016 candidates will be forced to get on board with the new national spirit of global leadership.
But for now, Clapper’s sarcasm about intelligence gathering describes a nation that wants to be safe, as long as it’s not too much trouble and doesn’t require sacrifice.
Something has to give. If Obama won’t do it, those who hope to succeed him must talk honestly and straight to the public.
They must state a simple truth that goes like this: My fellow Americans, we can’t have it both ways.
