In President Obama’s recent speech in response to the Orlando shooting, he admitted that he’s chosen not to use the term “radical Islam” when discussing terrorist attacks. He said that the term would neither accomplish nor change anything. And then he asked us, “Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” To which I would reply a resounding YES.
Any able leader, whether in the military, government, or business, understands the fundamental concept of a “target.” It’s the thing that gets defined and identified so the organization knows what it is that they’re trying to do. So what is the Obama administration trying to do? It’s true that the president correctly stated that, “Our mission is to destroy ISIL.” But who and what is ISIL? Apparently Obama doesn’t want to say.
Donald Trump all but clinched the Republican Party nomination after his decisive win in Indiana. The post mortems have begun. Blame, recrimination, and threats, particularly from those who failed to secure the nomination for themselves or their favored candidate.
The headline of the week has been the death of the Grand Old Party. The Atlantic proclaimed, “The Day the Republican Party Died.” Perhaps Don McLean can be plucked from the shelves of the Rock and Roll Museum, dusted off, and tasked with writing a new song. “The three men I admired most, Jeb, Ted, and Mitt, caught the last #NeverTrump train for the coast.” Mr. McLean can work on the rhyming bit.
As the Donald Trump bandwagon continues to steamroll over the politically correct landscape, Trump has the Washington establishment chattering like a troop of confused monkeys whose cage has been disturbed by a kid poking a stick. The Donald phenomenon has also baffled the media who are obligated to provide us with explanations, even when they have none. This hasn’t prevented the public from contributing their own answers to the mix. It’s reminiscent of the old parable of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. As the old story goes, each observer, with only their sense of touch to guide them, tries to describe an animal they can’t see. Each one comes up with a different description based on the particular part of the elephant they’ve examined. As the fable reaches its conclusion, the reader is advised that while each of them was partially right, all of them were completely wrong.