This Presidents Day, Americans have the opportunity to reflect on the 43 men* that have held the highest office in public service and have played a significant role in transforming the United States—and the world—into what it is today. One of those 43 men still holds that office and still has the opportunity to shepherd the United States through its most pressing challenges. Will he lead us to safety and prosperity? Or will he walk us straight into a pack of wolves?
Unfortunately for us, Barack Obama seems completely disinterested in protecting the American people from the defining threat of our time—the rise of radical Islamic terrorism. In fact, if you buy the talking points coming out of the White House, then climate change is the defining threat of our time, not a well-funded organization of mass murderers that is rapidly expanding and will soon be capable of launching attacks on American soil. Not to say that climate change isn’t a problem worthy of our attention, but go back to September 11, 2001, and ask any American to name the greatest threat to our peace and prosperity. I guarantee that no one will say “global warming”, not even Al Gore.
In an effort to steal back the “SMH Award” from Vice President Joe Biden and his “butt buddy” comment (yes, you read that right—go watch it here), State Department spokesperson Marie Harf commented earlier this week that the United States cannot win its war with ISIS by killing all of them, but rather, that we should look for ways to address the root causes that lead people to join ISIS, such as a lack of job opportunities.
…..WHAT???
Even if a lack of jobs was the reason ISIS existed, President Obama still wouldn’t be the man for the job, given that the US labor force participation rate has dropped to its lowest level since 1978 and the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 28 million to 47 million since he took office. But seriously? That’s like saying that Cuba would be a happier place today if only JFK had given Fidel Castro a copy of Chicken Soup for the Soul.
But what about all the things President Obama is doing to “degrade and destroy” ISIS? After all, he’s seeking a Congressional AUMF (authorization to use military force), and he’s conducted over 3200 airstrikes on ISIS since August.
The problem is that the President’s mission and strategy don’t seem to fit each other. In the Bosnian War in 1995, the US dropped over 1,000 bombs in just 20 days. Today, we face a much more aggressive and brutal threat in ISIS, and in 6 months we’ve only conducted 3,200 bombings. Clearly, that’s not enough to “degrade and destroy” ISIS given that they’re still here—in fact, they’re still growing and claiming more territory. The AUMF won’t mean much either, since the President has promised not to send it ground troops. As many of our military commanders have already stated, this mission cannot be successful if only carried out by airstrikes and the Kurdish army. It’s just not enough firepower to defeat a threat that former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described as “beyond anything that we’ve seen” and that warrants “preparation for everything”.
It seems evident that President Obama would rather not pay attention to ISIS at all, and that he is only willing to act once the public notices that he is MIA. After all, his entire administration seems to be under threat of death if anyone is caught saying the words “terrorism” or “Islamic extremism”. Because he claimed victory over terrorism in his 2012 presidential campaign, he can’t go back now and admit that he didn’t really solve the problem. Instead, he’s trying to pretend that the problem really isn’t all that big. His military actions are not designed to carry out the mission that he trumpets in his speeches. Rather, they are designed to give the American people the impression that he is actually doing something about the problem.
This Presidents Day, while Americans remember great presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for their unbreakable resolve in the face of tremendous adversity, they should compare the courage and leadership of previous presidents to the current one. While Washington and Lincoln faced America’s challenges head-on, President Obama would rather just not deal with our problems. File him under the “Presidents who didn’t really want to be President” category.
John Kurtz is the President of Student PAC at NYU.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this post incorrectly said that 44 men have held the office of the Presidency. Since Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president (elected to non-consecutive terms), only 43 men have held the Presidency. Props to NYU student Ryan Castellano for catching my mistake!
Unfortunately for us, Barack Obama seems completely disinterested in protecting the American people from the defining threat of our time—the rise of radical Islamic terrorism. In fact, if you buy the talking points coming out of the White House, then climate change is the defining threat of our time, not a well-funded organization of mass murderers that is rapidly expanding and will soon be capable of launching attacks on American soil. Not to say that climate change isn’t a problem worthy of our attention, but go back to September 11, 2001, and ask any American to name the greatest threat to our peace and prosperity. I guarantee that no one will say “global warming”, not even Al Gore.
In an effort to steal back the “SMH Award” from Vice President Joe Biden and his “butt buddy” comment (yes, you read that right—go watch it here), State Department spokesperson Marie Harf commented earlier this week that the United States cannot win its war with ISIS by killing all of them, but rather, that we should look for ways to address the root causes that lead people to join ISIS, such as a lack of job opportunities.
…..WHAT???
Even if a lack of jobs was the reason ISIS existed, President Obama still wouldn’t be the man for the job, given that the US labor force participation rate has dropped to its lowest level since 1978 and the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 28 million to 47 million since he took office. But seriously? That’s like saying that Cuba would be a happier place today if only JFK had given Fidel Castro a copy of Chicken Soup for the Soul.
But what about all the things President Obama is doing to “degrade and destroy” ISIS? After all, he’s seeking a Congressional AUMF (authorization to use military force), and he’s conducted over 3200 airstrikes on ISIS since August.
The problem is that the President’s mission and strategy don’t seem to fit each other. In the Bosnian War in 1995, the US dropped over 1,000 bombs in just 20 days. Today, we face a much more aggressive and brutal threat in ISIS, and in 6 months we’ve only conducted 3,200 bombings. Clearly, that’s not enough to “degrade and destroy” ISIS given that they’re still here—in fact, they’re still growing and claiming more territory. The AUMF won’t mean much either, since the President has promised not to send it ground troops. As many of our military commanders have already stated, this mission cannot be successful if only carried out by airstrikes and the Kurdish army. It’s just not enough firepower to defeat a threat that former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described as “beyond anything that we’ve seen” and that warrants “preparation for everything”.
It seems evident that President Obama would rather not pay attention to ISIS at all, and that he is only willing to act once the public notices that he is MIA. After all, his entire administration seems to be under threat of death if anyone is caught saying the words “terrorism” or “Islamic extremism”. Because he claimed victory over terrorism in his 2012 presidential campaign, he can’t go back now and admit that he didn’t really solve the problem. Instead, he’s trying to pretend that the problem really isn’t all that big. His military actions are not designed to carry out the mission that he trumpets in his speeches. Rather, they are designed to give the American people the impression that he is actually doing something about the problem.
This Presidents Day, while Americans remember great presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for their unbreakable resolve in the face of tremendous adversity, they should compare the courage and leadership of previous presidents to the current one. While Washington and Lincoln faced America’s challenges head-on, President Obama would rather just not deal with our problems. File him under the “Presidents who didn’t really want to be President” category.
John Kurtz is the President of Student PAC at NYU.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this post incorrectly said that 44 men have held the office of the Presidency. Since Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president (elected to non-consecutive terms), only 43 men have held the Presidency. Props to NYU student Ryan Castellano for catching my mistake!