Islamic State finally has the attention of the Obama administration and its “Progressive” allies—or they’ve concluded it’s necessary that the rest of us think it has. Now comes the question that matters: What will they do?
So far, it looks like nothing more than they’d have done when they weren’t paying attention. What ex-Senator Russ Feingold said last week sounded like the Obama default setting of speaking sternly (wink, wink,) to anyone who might assist ISIS and letting it go at that.
Above all Feingold counsels, (remember, the Evader-in Chief has advised we’ll eventually win by being smart,) “Don’t be foolish and play their game, which is to send our troops over there without a clear strategy.”
Oh. Is the former senator under the impression that ISIS’ “game,” hoping the U.S. will send troops “without a clear strategy,” makes the alternative of sending them with a clear strategy unavailable?
Perhaps his words reflect the established strategic preference of the current administration, to announce, upon sending them, when the troops will return home and what they won’t be permitted to do to the enemy.
But what we found most interesting about last Thursday’s Madison TV story is Feingold—in his own words—saying the U.S. government’s primary function, protecting the nation’s physical safety—rests on “negotiation.”
We’ll stipulate there are times when even a sensible administration negotiates, but it’s telling that it didn’t occur to Feingold to say some things aren’t negotiable. And if your negotiators get the kind of results you’d expect from Laurel and Hardy (see: Iran nuclear deal,) it’s probably best not talking at all.
Russ Feingold first ran for office in a world of flower children and nuclear-free zones, reflecting a potentially dangerous detachment from reality then, and an imminently dangerous one now.