The Candidate Who Can See the Enemy, Can Defeat It. Dr. Phares makes a compelling case for Mitt Romney:
Probably I am among the few who see the clouds gathering around the globe and thus have been urging leaders to act fast, decisively and early on to avoid the future Jihad –that has began already. Had what I see wasn’t there I would be fully excited -- like any citizen -- to argue forcefully about the crucial matters of our existence: health, environment, nutrition, scientific discoveries, animal protection, and why not space exploration. Had I not realized that all that debate was hinging on what Bin laden and Ahmedinijad were preparing, I would have been looking at a whole different roaster of Presidential candidates. But that is not the world I see ahead of us, in the immediate future.
Hence, I’ll leave the debate about the best economic and technological directions to their experts and I would postpone the social and philosophical dreams to better times. Right now and right here I am interested in who among the candidates can simply understand the tragic equation we’re in and may be able to use the resources of this nation to cross the bridge ahead of us. President Bush was elected before 9/11 neither on the grounds of avoiding the Jihadi wars nor winning them. Very few even knew that we were already at war. He was reelected on the ground of being a better choice than the defeatist political alternative. This year I suggest that Americans deserve a more daring choice. They need to see and certify that the next occupant of the White House lives on this Planet, at this age, knows that we are at war and above all knows which war we are fighting. The margin of error is too slim to allow hesitations.
By 2012 the Jihadists may recruit one million suicide bombers and could align two nuclear powers. By 2016 they would deploy 10 million suicide bombers and seize five regimes equipped with the final weapon. In the next eight years NATO’s European membership could be battling urban intifadas and US task forces lacking shelters worldwide. To avoid these prospects of apocalypse the offices on Pennsylvania Avenue must catch up with the lost opportunities as of next winter.
Thus, and unlike traditional commentators in classical US politics I am not looking at who said what and who flipped flopped when. Frankly, it doesn’t matter at this stage if it is a he or a she, of this or other race, of this or other church, and if the President is single, has a large family or has divorced twice. The stakes are much higher than the sweet but irrelevant American usual personality debate. I want to know if the candidates are strong willed, smart, educated about the world, informed about the threat, can define it, can identify it, can fight it, are not duped by their bureaucracy, cannot be influenced by foreign regimes, have the right advisors, can run an economy while commanding a war and still see the threats as they handle daily crisis and take drastic measures as the hard times are approaching. I want to know if the candidates are very specific when they inform their public about the menace. Yes, it is indeed a vital function of national security that we need to insure for the next few years, so that all other issues can be addressed thoroughly. In short I don’t want to see the fall of Constantinople being repeated on these shores in the next decade or two. Humanity will not recover from such a disaster.
Dr. Phares discusses the qualifications of the four remaining contenders for President, two Democrats, two Republicans. "I am looking at the scariest item on any Presidential agenda and check out if they are conscious about it: national security." Here is his conclusion:
This is why I have come to the conclusion that -based on what was provided to the public by the four leading candidates- Governor Romney has the capacity of managing the counter strategies against the Jihadists, only because he stated to the public that he sees the enemy as to who they are. And if a President can see them, he can defeat them. His Republican contender, now leading the polls, can sense them but haven’t shown them. The leading candidates on the other side are making progress in the opposite direction: One wants to end the War unilaterally and the other wants to make Peace with the oppressors. In short, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCain will supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to the barracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.
Hence, as is, I have recommended Governor Romney for the Republican Primaries as first among equals while considering Senator McCain as a genuine leader. If Romney is selected I believe America may have a chance to try new strategies. If his contender is selected, we will have four or eight more years of the past seven years. On the other side, I have suggested to counter-Terrorism experts to help Democratic candidates restructure their agendas on national security in line with the reality of the enemy: For I would like to see both Parties presenting a united vision of the threat while differing on how to confront it. That would be the ideal situation America can be in and a response to the deepest will of the American public.
I would add that considering John McCain's position on illegal immigration he is not serious about national security. He gets A+ on the war in Iraq but national security goes way beyond that. He has a blind spot when it comes to our borders.
McCain has also said he would close Guantanamo Bay on his first day in office. His reasoning for closing Gitmo is reason enough to derail his "Straight Talk" Express: because "there's a lot of anti-Americanism" around the world. According to John McCain we should bring a bunch of terrorists to the United States (Ft. Leavenworth to be exact. Are Kansas voters listening?) so everybody will like us again. Call it the Mealy-Mouth Express:
John Weaver, Sen McCain's chief strategist, confirmed his plans for a markedly more conciliatory foreign policy. "The next president will have to work extra hard to unite our friends and divide our foes. Sadly the opposite has occurred in recent years," he said, as Sen McCain addressed a crowded hall in the farming community of Cedar Falls.
"John believes that you can accomplish a lot more in this world by sticking to your principles, while adopting a much more humble tone with your partners."
Humble with your partners? I guess John McCain doesn't consider U.S. citizens his partners.
The endorsement by Dr. Phares is significant:
In short, if elected, Romney will try to destroy the mother ship, McCain will supply the trenches, Clinton will pull the troops back to the barracks and Obama will visit the foes’ bunkers.
Yes, John McCain is a war hero. That does not automatically make him the best choice for President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.