Obama's new national security strategy a recipe for disaster

Jerry Philipson
President Obama's recently unveiled National Security Strategy is a recipe for disaster, not only for the United States but for the free world as well. It diminishes rather than enhances our security and is an abdication of America's role as leader and protector of free nations and champion of western civilization.

The document and philosophy behind it limit America's capacity to respond quickly and decisively to threats and acts of terrorism and war against us and our allies and virtually guarantees that these will occur with ever increasing frequency and ferocity because our enemies know they have nothing to fear and that there will be no real consequences for their actions. As the U.S. places shackles on itself by emphasizing diplomacy and a collective response to anything and everything enemies throw it's way and becomes weaker as a result those who would destroy us and our way of life become stronger and more emboldened in turn and more likely to threaten and attack. This is an equation that seems to have escaped Obama.


That isn't the only thing that has escaped him. The strategy is so full of fallacies it is difficult to refer to them all in a piece of this length. Let me cite but three.


For one thing, there is an assumption that diplomacy can be successful in thwarting the activities of our enemies and that discussion will somehow prevent them from doing us harm. This is dead wrong because it is impossible to change the minds of ideologues, lunatics and religiously motivated fanatics and those are the people we would be around the table with.


For another, there is an assumption that a collective response to our enemies is possible to begin with. It isn't, because individual nations will always act in their own best interests and these vary from country to country. One only has to look at the failure to formulate a collective response to North Korea and Iran to se this.


For another, it doesn't link Islam to terrorism and acts of war. This is fallacious because Jihadists, Islamists, extremists or whatever else you want to call them all carry out their murderous activities in the name of Islam and Islam makes their violence and heinous acts mandatory. It also means that there is nothing in the strategy about countering and refuting Islamic beliefs and doctrines. Al Qaeda and it's affiliates and apologists may be the instruments of terror and war but Islam is their enabler.


And on and on. Suffice it to say that the strategy is full of fallacies and platitudes which make us all much more vulnerable and the world a much more dangerous place because they preclude America's ability to act unilaterally and with resolve when necessary and because there is no accurate recognition in it of the true nature of the world we live in and the threats we face. The whole thing is nothing more than a formula for inaction, inaction which jeopardizes our way of life and very existence.


What would have happened if this strategy had been in place when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Would we have called for meetings among interested parties to resolve differences and avoid further bloodshed?

President Obama's recently unveiled National Security Strategy is a recipe for disaster, not only for the United States but for the free world as well. It diminishes rather than enhances our security and is an abdication of America's role as leader and protector of free nations and champion of western civilization.

The document and philosophy behind it limit America's capacity to respond quickly and decisively to threats and acts of terrorism and war against us and our allies and virtually guarantees that these will occur with ever increasing frequency and ferocity because our enemies know they have nothing to fear and that there will be no real consequences for their actions. As the U.S. places shackles on itself by emphasizing diplomacy and a collective response to anything and everything enemies throw it's way and becomes weaker as a result those who would destroy us and our way of life become stronger and more emboldened in turn and more likely to threaten and attack. This is an equation that seems to have escaped Obama.


That isn't the only thing that has escaped him. The strategy is so full of fallacies it is difficult to refer to them all in a piece of this length. Let me cite but three.


For one thing, there is an assumption that diplomacy can be successful in thwarting the activities of our enemies and that discussion will somehow prevent them from doing us harm. This is dead wrong because it is impossible to change the minds of ideologues, lunatics and religiously motivated fanatics and those are the people we would be around the table with.


For another, there is an assumption that a collective response to our enemies is possible to begin with. It isn't, because individual nations will always act in their own best interests and these vary from country to country. One only has to look at the failure to formulate a collective response to North Korea and Iran to se this.


For another, it doesn't link Islam to terrorism and acts of war. This is fallacious because Jihadists, Islamists, extremists or whatever else you want to call them all carry out their murderous activities in the name of Islam and Islam makes their violence and heinous acts mandatory. It also means that there is nothing in the strategy about countering and refuting Islamic beliefs and doctrines. Al Qaeda and it's affiliates and apologists may be the instruments of terror and war but Islam is their enabler.


And on and on. Suffice it to say that the strategy is full of fallacies and platitudes which make us all much more vulnerable and the world a much more dangerous place because they preclude America's ability to act unilaterally and with resolve when necessary and because there is no accurate recognition in it of the true nature of the world we live in and the threats we face. The whole thing is nothing more than a formula for inaction, inaction which jeopardizes our way of life and very existence.


What would have happened if this strategy had been in place when Pearl Harbor was attacked? Would we have called for meetings among interested parties to resolve differences and avoid further bloodshed?