Marie Harf, State Department Deputy Spokesperson recently said in order to stop the Islamic State from harming any more innocent people we should help them find jobs.
I should pause here for clarification. The Obama Administration has yet to declare that an act of radical Islamic terrorism has occurred in the United States or anywhere else for that matter. So, to be fair, perhaps Harf’s statements, while potentially applicable to the rest of the world, don’t apply to the U.S.
In case Harf’s “monumental” statement isn’t etched in your brain, as it is in mine, here’s what she actually said the strategy should be to end the militants’ “reign of terror,” my words, not hers, around the world.
Harf said, in pertinent part, “But we cannot win this war by killing them, we cannot kill our way out of this war. We need, in the longer term, medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…”
She continued on after being interrupted by MSNBC’s “Hardball” host, Chris Matthews by saying, ““we can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance, we can help them build their economies, so they can have job opportunities for these people.
You’re right, there is no easy solution in the long-term to preventing and combating violent extremism, but if we can help countries work at the root causes of this, what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47, instead of try to start a business? Maybe we can try– try to chip away at this problem, while at the same time going after the threat, taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners around the world.”
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, she must be brilliant since she was a former Central Intelligence Agency spokesperson and the former campaign spokeswoman on national security issues for President Barack Obama during his 2012 re-election bid. Right?
Assume for a moment that we take her up on her obviously “well thought out” plan and apply the principles right here in the U.S. for starters to see if it can really work.
We could employ the Islamic State militants by giving them jobs that illegal immigrants may no longer want to do if Obama’s executive order on immigration passes.
Currently, the executive order has stalled because 26 states, spearheaded by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, sought and were granted a temporary injunction.
Obama’s executive order essentially grants “amnesty” to those illegally in the U.S. by preventing their deportation.
The Islamic State militants illegally here could work in America, if we just overlook their criminal activities. Once here, the terrorists could replace the illegal immigrants and do the jobs they currently hold, albeit illegally.
On second thought, this may not work out very well. If some of the militants are already in America then Obama’s executive order on immigration could potentially apply to those Islamic State terrorists, if the administration overlooks past criminal acts, and forgoes their deportation.
If this occurs, terrorists could be granted legal status. However, they might begin to refuse to do those jobs that Americans won’t do and illegal immigrants used to want to do, but no longer want to do. That would destroy the whole “jobs” plan for the Islamic State group. And it looked like such a good plan for a moment!
Oh well. Is there another way to apply Harf’s plan? What if we took her strategy and employed the terrorists in Boko Haram who are fighting to turn Nigeria into an Islamic State?
Perhaps their unemployment figures, using Harf’s logic, explain why they kidnapped school girls and killed their parents in recent attacks. Resisting the urge to flyover and annihilate them, what if we employ them instead?
We could offer the Boko Haram Islamists job training as teachers in all-girls schools. Applying Harf’s rationale, wouldn’t Boko Haram then no longer want to kidnap young girls? Make sense?
Finally, I wonder if this same strategy could work on a president. Stay with me on this one and hear me out.
If we were to offer a President of the United States compensation for the position that he or she held, would that president come in off the golf course and take his job seriously as the president?
That would mean no more interviews with women in bathtubs, no more selfies after a hostage has been killed by Islamic State terrorists, and no rounds of golf following beheadings of Coptic Christians in Egypt.
If the answer is yes, then I would suggest that the first action the president should take is to replace the State Department Deputy Spokesperson for making the most asinine statement during any president’s term in office.
Next, I would sit down with U.S. military leaders and Congress and clearly define the enemy. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorists who have a connection with Islam whether this administration likes it or not.
Secondly, after the enemy has been defined, a rational military plan of action for dealing with the ever increasing threat of the Islamic State militants should be devised. Again, not by a spokesperson or the president himself but by U.S. military leaders, Congress and Obama sitting down together to discuss what is in America’s best interests. While I am skeptical this can be achieved under this administration, it is the best course of action, in my humble opinion. If anyone should disagree with me, then we could always return to Harf’s plan.
Once America’s strategy has been determined and approved by Congress, I would take those same military leaders and work with our partners in other countries toward devising a more extensive plan to eradicate the existing threat.
Until then, the Obama administration would do well to keep the ridiculous statements at a minimum and the selfies out of the public view.
The American people have had enough of the sideshow.
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!