Is the USA’s Hands-Off Policy Toward Terrorism Inevitable?

2015 is already turning out to be the most violent for global terrorism since 9/11 and with last week’s attacks in Paris and Mali, the American public seems to be growing ever more anxious about our Government’s hands-off policy toward dealing with terrorism. So far the President has gotten a pass for his reluctance (if not defiance) to take any meaningful action to effectively stem the tide of terrorism from ISIS, Al Qaeda and other groups. Instead, most of the blame for the burgeoning problem is still being laid at George W Bush’s feet, for getting the USA involved in a long costly war in Iraq more than a decade ago. The President has even invoked the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. and intimated that he’s content to wait for the moral arc of the universe to bend toward justice, thereby letting the tide of terrorism resolve itself over time.

Commentators will debate how much blame Obama’s hands-off policy and Bush’s hands-on policy should bear for the global terrorism mess we find ourselves in today. The point of this commentary is to question whether things would have turned out meaningfully different if we had instead elected other leaders from the pool of presidential candidates since the events of 9/11.

We can all agree that 9/11 would have likely occurred with Al Gore as President, and academics and pundits can speculate about what his response would have been to that national tragedy, but we will obviously never know for sure how his leadership would have evolved. Bush went to war because of his belief (erroneously in hindsight, along with many members of Congress) that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Would Gore have known better?

However, we do know that Gore served two terms as Vice President in the Clinton Administration which history has shown was less than pro-active in dealing with the growing problem of global terrorism even at that time. Let’s not forget the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was the do-over for a botched attempt back in 1993 under Clinton’s watch. Obviously, Gore would not have necessarily followed Clinton’s soft approach to terrorism, but there is little to suggest that the flaky Gore would have been much more hawkish on terrorism, especially after he sold his TV station to Al-Jazeera, an organization many critics claim is sympathetic to the terrorist cause.

Furthermore, do the achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, former and current Secretary of State, respectively, suggest either would have been more effective in dealing with global terrorism than our actual leaders have been? Remember, either one could have been elected President during the last decade. As it turns out, by most accounts, Clinton’s tenure as Secretary did nothing to strengthen our cause against terrorism, and although John Kerry’s tenure as Secretary is admittedly a work in progress, how can he possibly redeem himself after negotiating that horrific Iran deal, a deal that has probably done more to help the cause of the terrorists than any other single act in history.

Judging from his distinguished military career and long track record in the Senate, 2008 candidate for president, John McCain, was uniquely prepared among presidential contenders in this new century for the role of Commander-in-Chief and could have been far more effective in combating terrorism. It’s been decades since America has elected a leader with strong military experience and that trend is likely to continue with the recent suspension of Democrat Jim Webb’s campaign and Republican Lindsey Graham’s campaign barely registering among polled voters.

It should be apparent to even casual observers that President Obama has no intention of taking any meaningful action in dealing with terrorism, here or abroad, now or for the remainder of his term in office. Obama apparently believes according to the “arc of history” idea that it will all work out in our favor in the long run, but someone should remind him that another great hero of the liberal cause, John Maynard Keynes, acknowledged that in the long run, we’re all dead!

Main GOP Debate Hosted by Fox Business Channel: Two Disturbing Realizations

There were (at least) two disturbing realizations that flowed from last night's later GOP Presidential Debate.

First, near the bottom of the time period the question was posed to Jeb Bush as to how he would tend to another 2008 style financial crisis and whether or not the banks would be allowed to fail. Jeb dodged the question by saying he would implement measures to prevent a new crisis. The discussion opened up to other candidates and notwithstanding the diversity of backgrounds, experiences, personalities and styles on stage, it became abundantly clear that all were surprised to hear the question and more importantly not one could answer the question persuasively.

Other candidates were asked if they would allow a major bank, such as Bank of America, to fail. The silence was deafening until Ted Cruz brazenly chimed in that he would, to which John Kasich commented that such an answer showed Cruz’ lack of experience and desire to put his philosophical dogma above the practical and probably horrific ramifications of allowing a behemoth like Bank of America to fail. More significantly, the chronic interrupters were speechless; No tough talk from Trump, no words of wisdom from Carson, no lectures from Carly, no platitudes from Marco; nobody had any ideas. I would have liked the opportunity to hear from former presidential candidates Mitt Romney on the topic or for that matter Newt Gingrich or Rudi Giuliani, or even current candidates Christie and Huckabee who were not allowed to attend this time. I imagine their contributions could have been meaningful. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.

With the national debt, the role of the Federal Reserve and overall government fiscal responsibility being key issues among GOP candidates, one would expect someone on that stage to have something to say worth hearing on that topic. I vacillate on whether it is more pathetic that they were aware of the issue’s relevance but were ill prepared to answer or that some or all on that stage are still oblivious to the fact that the global economy right now is in many ways even more vulnerable today than it was in 2007-8.

This is no partisan attack on Republicans. The Democrat candidates appear even more out to lunch on the topic as they don’t even bother to discuss the fiscal integrity of our government or the banking system. The fact that our current debt ($19 Trillion) together with unfunded future liabilities from entitlement programs ($200 Trillion) amounts to more than 10 times our GDP does not seem to faze Democrats in the least, so why would a financial and banking crisis worry them? Their standard answer for all problems is to spend more money, by largely borrowing without restraint and to a lesser extent confiscating wealth of private individuals through onerous taxes. Their view is apparently that the government can solve any problem if it throws enough money at it.

The second realization is far more disturbing especially in light of the fact that no one running for president apparently has the first clue about how to deal with another financial/banking crisis. Last night, John Kasich commented (erroneously I hope) that depositors can't be allowed to lose their deposits in the event of a bank failure. Whoa John, are you forgetting about FDIC insurance? The moderators and the other panelists didn't correct him! Did I miss something? Are depositors now considered bank creditors subject to bankruptcy law? Someone needs to answer that one quickly.

As far as I am concerned all the participants in last night's debate earned a big fat failing grade for that collective performance on that one issue, and that performance should convince voters that America needs a President extraordinarily prepared for the extraordinary challenges that await us. Marco Rubio, when asked about his lack of experience to be President, especially compared to Hillary Clinton, gave a laughable answer that reminded me of an old joke about a job applicant when asked for a resume answers that he did not have one because he does not like to dwell on the past. Rubio believes his candidacy should be judged on his vision for the future. Really Marco? The fact that you can’t appreciate the value of solid relevant experience in undertaking arguably THE most difficult job in the world proves you lack the maturity and judgement for the job. Rubio would have been better served by saying that Mrs. Clinton, for all her so-called experience and for all her years in government service, had very few accomplishments to show for it.