Advertisement

Editorial: The right and wrong ways to fight terrorism

 
President Barack Obama blended a methodical explanation of his administration’s practical efforts to combat terrorism with an appeal to reject rash calls for a ground war in the Middle East and discrimination against Muslims at home. Yet the Republican criticism began on social media before Obama finished and continued unabated on Monday.
President Barack Obama blended a methodical explanation of his administration’s practical efforts to combat terrorism with an appeal to reject rash calls for a ground war in the Middle East and discrimination against Muslims at home. Yet the Republican criticism began on social media before Obama finished and continued unabated on Monday.
Published Dec. 7, 2015

In a rare address from the Oval Office, President Barack Obama sought to reassure Americans anxious about the threat of terrorism in their own communities following last week's deadly attack in California. The president blended a methodical explanation of his administration's practical efforts to combat terrorism with an appeal to reject rash calls for a ground war in the Middle East and discrimination against Muslims at home. Yet the Republican criticism began on social media before Obama finished and continued unabated on Monday.

Donald Trump: "Is that all there is? We need a new President — FAST!"

Sen. Marco Rubio: "I fear he may have made things worse.''

Adam Goodman, Tampa political consultant and Fox News regular: "His continued abdication of leadership is clear & frightful.''

What is clear and frightful is the inflammatory rhetoric, reckless proposals and factual inaccuracies from many of the Republicans vying to succeed Obama. This is an anxious time for the nation, with enhanced security in public spaces and terrorism that has morphed from the highly coordinated 9/11 attacks to individual acts on soft targets like last week's massacre by a radicalized California couple who were on no one's radar. It calls for a reasoned, sophisticated response grounded in reliable national security intelligence and pragmatism — not political shots and bombastic calls for action that sacrifice fundamental values such as religious freedom, privacy rights and personal liberty.

The worst demagoguery comes from Trump, who Monday called for the United States to ban all Muslims from entering the country. A smart New York Times analysis of every word Trump spoke over the last week revealed a dangerous pattern of referring to "we'' against an unnamed "them," who could be undocumented immigrants or Syrian refugees. It is a campaign based on fear rather than fact and wild claims rather than policy papers. Trump has all but promised nuclear war in the Middle East while spreading false claims that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. With the Iowa caucuses less than two months away, it is time for other Republican candidates and party leaders to hold Trump accountable for exploiting the legitimate frustrations and concerns of voters in such a reckless fashion.

Other Republican presidential candidates offer more substance but unrealistic alternatives. Jeb Bush calls for "a wartime president'' and has suggested focusing on helping Christian refugees from Syria rather than Muslims. Rubio substantially overstates the number of Americans on the government's terrorist watch list in a failed attempt to justify his vote last week against banning people on the list from obtaining firearms or explosives. Sen. Ted Cruz, who leads one Iowa poll, hints at a nuclear war in the Middle East. Bush and Rubio sound prepared to launch a ground war, and both want to restore the federal government's ability to collect massive amounts of data even though the government can still get a suspect's metadata from the telephone service providers with a court order. Religious tests, collecting data on millions of law-abiding Americans and ill-defined ground wars were not successful in the past and will not end terrorism.

Spend your days with Hayes

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Obama offered no new terrorism initiatives Sunday night and reminded Americans of ongoing efforts: sending Special Operations forces to Iraq and Syria; bombing oil tankers to cut off cash for the Islamic State; building an international coalition to fight the terrorists in the Middle East. He called the California killings an act of terrorism by a Muslim couple who had been radicalized, and he made compelling arguments against a ground war in the Middle East and for banning assault rifles at home. He warned against discriminating against all Muslims and said their help will be needed to root out terrorism.

These are not brash new ideas. Legitimate arguments can be made — as Hillary Clinton did over the weekend — that some of these efforts to fight terrorism should be accelerated and expanded. But pacing aside, it is a responsible course by the commander in chief as the Republican candidates to succeed him fan the real fears of Americans with false claims, simplistic solutions and reckless rhetoric.