Defeat ISIS – Part II
While most Americans have been sucked into the 2016 political circus better known as the presidential election, foreign policy hawks are looking for a viable candidate with real solutions to combat terrorism and defeat ISIS which has become a growing threat throughout the Middle East and parts of Europe.
In the beginning of the presidential election, Republicans had some good options such as, Senator Lindsey Graham, when it came to finding the right candidate who would take on ISIS and eradicate the terrorist organization once and for all. However, what Republican foreign policy wonks were hoping for and what they got were two vastly different things. As a result of Trump’s nomination, Republican foreign policy elites are lining up to support Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Kori Schake, former foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush joins a growing list of foreign policy hawks who are looking across the aisle and throwing shade at Donald Trump. Schake’s stance on supporting Clinton is a sweeping commentary on the fact people believe Clinton to be a safer bet than Trump at being in charge of America’s national security, and really can you blame them?
In reviewing both Trump and Clinton’s positions on keeping America safe from the growing threat of ISIL, Clinton has a well laid out plan on how she will combat radical jihadism and take out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria.
On the other hand, Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS looks like the possible opening sketch for Saturday Night Live. In a nutshell Trump wants to”bar all Muslims from entering the US, bomb the families of ISIS members, use increased torture methods to interrogate detainees, take the oil from ISIS (and give it to the veterans), and “bomb the shit out of them.” Trump’s comments and plan to defeat ISIS shows a candidate who lacks a clear understanding threat of terrorism and is grossly underestimating the danger of ISIS.
The argument can be made, that Trump’s curt talking points on ISIS are a way to stay above the fold, but for voters looking for a leader with foreign policy experience, Trump’s comments are more than a ploy to get press time, they’re a grim reminder of his inexperience with national security matters.
Earlier in the election, Senator Lindsey Graham gave Americans a sobering realization on the dangers of ISIS and made it clear, we need to fight them [ISIS] over there before they come here.” Graham got it right, and in a few short weeks Americans will have to choose between a reality tv business mogul or a dynasty candidate with more foreign policy experience than she knows what to do with.
Looking at the election from a foreign policy angle and each candidate’s experience in dealing with radical jihad it is a no-brainer on who is best suited to keep America safe, and with top ranking foreign policy advisors throwing their weight behind Clinton and ignoring party lines speaks volumes.
However, this election is not based on merely foreign policy, but the number of experts who have voiced their concern and support for the opposing party candidate is something voters should not take lightly as they prepare to head to the polls on November 8th. At the end of the day, the next president will face the grave threat of ISIS head on because the truth in the matter is, ISIS does not care about party lines and seems to be just getting started in their war on the West.
Originally written for Political Storm