The one major task the executive and legislative branches of government own is protecting the homeland at all costs. Most other agendas taken up by the federal government are for the most part unconstitutional. So it is easy to lose sight on the things that matter when politicians are worried about their legacy.
Obama has finally shown some backbone and is on board for the fight on terror, specifically ISIS.
Now all those anti-war leftists (hypocrites) are now defending Obama claiming ISIS is a real threat to the U.S. while Saddam Hussain was not. Maybe that is true and maybe it is not since it is possible the Intelligence community has gotten it wrong about ISIS like they did on Iraq’s WMD program. We are all great Monday morning quarterbacks when we know the outcome. The point here is it is better to be safe than sorry.
Obama may be fighting the good war and Bush was wrong, but Obama is getting this war on ISIS wrong on so many fronts:
First, it is impossible to win a war with no ground troops. You garner no gains in territory and more importantly, you garner no intelligence.
Secondly, if Obama did not prematurely pull out all combat troops in Iraq then ISIS would not be gaining ground there.
Thirdly, and most importantly, wars are won by protecting our sovereignty at home. This is done by protecting our borders. Any war on terror overseas is moot if our borders are not secure. If a lone wolf terrorist can walk into the United States and attack Americans then we are losing the war on terror. This was the major difference between Bush and Obama in fighting terror. Bush understood that the homeland came first and he made huge strides to better police our borders. Bush started by creating Homeland Security to better intelligence gathering and to be ready to act at a moment’s notice. Sure there were issues and glitches (Katrina), but it has gotten better. New procedures put in place have help thwart hundreds of internal terror plots. It has also prevented terrorists from routinely travelling in and out of our country.
Obama and Attorney General, Eric Holder, have been against protecting our borders since they got in office. In fact, they have encouraged the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. creating a huge humanitarian problem at our borders. Holder, has sued states whose immigration laws try to tighten security at the borders and also attempt to verify citizenship. Why would they do such a thing? It would be a big legacy win for Obama to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Besides, Latinos vote the Democratic ticket by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Therefore, it is the goal of this administration to allow as many illegal aliens to enter and then grant them amnesty. It is politics! Politics that is enabling both dangerous drugs and cartels to enter into the U.S as well as terrorists.
If we can protect our borders at home, then there is no reason to go to war overseas against terrorists. Protecting our borders can also protect us from the burden of illegal aliens and drugs entering our country. If Obama spent as much money protecting our borders as he does fighting ISIS and pushing for legacy pieces of legislation such as ObamaCare; then the border would be secure. In fact, protecting the border would do a better job in lowering healthcare costs because it would eliminate the need to care for millions of illegal aliens and it could lower the drug dependency rate.
Finally, Obama has gone to war unilaterally and has failed to get congressional approval.
If I were President, the first thing I would spend money on would be a high tech surveillance of our airports, ports, coasts, and boarders. The second thing would be to build on national intelligence agencies ability to share intelligence to make sure we can prevent home grown threats and prevent terrorists from gaining entry into our country.