This is one more piece of evidence that our approach to fighting the Islamic State (let’s not dignify it by calling it a “policy”) is insufficient, and too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are not leveling with the American people about the dangers we face.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Fox News Sunday argued, “Typically, we looked at al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as the sort of premier bomb maker, if you will, hitting the aviation sector, their crown jewel, but now you’re looking at ISIS now putting bombs on airplanes, which concerns me greatly, not just for Russian airlines, but quite frankly American-bound flights into the United States.” He continued:
Well, you know, again [President Obama] called it the jayvee team, but now, we’re seeing ISIS bring down airplanes with bombs, which is what al Qaeda did. As you said, the greatest aviation disaster since — terrorist event since 9/11.
And what I want to see, what’s interesting is to see what the Russian response is going to be. Their target packages have been primarily to prop up Assad and his regime in the region, not to go after ISIS. We’ve seen in the last couple days, though, attacks now, air strikes in Raqqa going against ISIS.
The sad fact is, because of we’ve had a failed policy and failed leadership, now, we’re having to rely on Russians and the Iranians to go into Syria to fight and destroy ISIS. And that’s kind of where we are today.
I think, again, it’s this — weakness invites aggression. We have not handled this right. We haven’t done anything. We haven’t made decisions in the region in terms of a strategy.
And when you don’t have a strategy, you fail. I think we’re seeing this unfold before our very eyes.
Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, echoed these concerns. “I think this is very, very significant. This will be only the third aircraft brought down by a bomb in the last quarter-century,” he explained on “Face the Nation.” “This is a very big deal, largest loss of life in a plane brought down by bomb since Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.” He added:
I think the implications are many here. One is, it’s going to add to the perception that ISIS is winning. And that has been a key strength of their in terms of attracting — attracting followers, attracting recruits. So, that’s one implication.
Another is that ISIS now has about 20 different affiliates around the world, militant groups who have aligned themselves with ISIS. They are now going to be competing, right, for who can do something like this. And then you have al Qaeda, which since 9/11 has worked very hard to try to bring down an airliner. They have been unsuccessful.
This must be kind of a message to them that: We need to do something like this to keep our brand alive. . . .
So, as I said, there’s been militant groups in about 20 countries that have always existed, that have been focused on local targets, that have been focused on local issues, that when ISIS was doing exceptionally well, they decided to brand themselves as ISIS. They decided to go with the lead team, so to speak. Right?
He specifically warned of the threat to Americans. Morell said, “One of the ISIS groups in Libya several months ago went after an international hotel in Tripoli frequented by international businessmen. An American was killed there. So, I think you’re going to see more of that kind of attack, including attacks against Americans.” And, of course, there were the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans.
This should inform a number of policy decisions: 1.) The number and composition of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq and Syria; 2.) The decision to pare back on National Security Agency anti-terrorism surveillance that is designed to look at patterns that suggest impending terrorist activity; 3.) Emphasis on drones and killing top Islamic terrorists rather than capturing them to obtain intelligence; and 4.) The size of the defense budget.
Candidates and elected officials who argue we should stay out of “civil wars” in the Middle East are ill-informed or are being disingenuous. If we leave the Islamic State to duke it out with failing states, we are leaving our own security in others’ hands and hoping the terrorists won’t hit us. This is tragically flawed, pre-9/11 thinking. If we understand the multiplicity of terrorist groups and the competition for more spectacular attacks, it would seem a no-brainer to keep in place or strengthen surveillance that could pick up on plots and to capture, not kill, as many plotters as possible. And finally, it is nearly incomprehensible that in this environment, with a dizzying array of Islamic threats, that we could be reducing military readiness and declining to spend necessary funds on innovation and modernization.
Given the astronomical growth in jihadist groups, the multiplication of threats and the increase in their territorial and financial assets, Republicans might focus voters on an essential question for 2016: Why should we give a promotion to the co-architect of the national security policy that permitted all this?
_________________
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/09/unserious-about-defeating-the-islamic-state/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_popns
Former deputy CIA director Michael Morell testifies before the House Select Intelligence Committee last year in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)