I worked hard all night working on an Op-Ed in regard the horrific attack against France by ISIS. This morning I was still concerned about France, and then I remembered our porous Southern Border and the Mexican Drug Cartels. The Mexican Cartels already have the weapons and explosives needed to reign mayhem on the United States. How much money would it take to bribe them to allow ISIS operatives to enter the United States through one of their sophisticated tunnel systems? How many sleeper ISIS cells already exist in America?
Are we naive to believe that we are safe from the danger of an ISIS attack? Or, would it be relatively easy to achieve considering what I stated above? I think it is the latter. We are almost wide open for such an attack, and our nation is rife with "soft targets" that ISIS enjoys capitalizing on to murder innocent civilians. I am not attempting to scare anyone. I will leave that up to the GOP. They always prefer to rule by fear rather than by law. I am looking at the situation using critical thinking and logic. We are not a hard target to hit in regard soft targets. With that said, what is the answer to protecting our nation from such an attack?
We know that the Charles de Gaulle, France's only Aircraft Carrier is leaving France for the Middle-east on Wednesday. We also know that President Hollande has just declared that what took place was an act of war. This, in turn, means that the entire NATO alliance could be called in to respond to this (under Article 5). I believe that this would wind-up as an advantage to France, Russia, and the United States. I think President Obama should have dropped his demands for regime change and created a coalition of American and Russian forces to battle ISIS, which could very well bring about good will with the Russians and side-step another Cold War. If NATO joins in the fray, there will be essentially three (3) SuperPowers fighting the same enemy. If that scenario should happen, it is up to our diplomats to approach President Putin and in a straight-forward manner request that all three of us obliterate ISIS as fast as possible to reduce the threats to our homelands.
Putin has stated that he wants to eliminate ISIS now while he can, as he does not want those forces to return to their homes, battle hardened, and then attack Mother Russia. I believe he is smart to take that approach, and it is a strategy that could prevent an ISIS attack on American soil. Imagine the combined forces of NATO, Russia, and the United States working together to eliminate a common enemy! It would be quick, brutal, and send a message to others that we will not tolerate terrorism against any of our nations, and stand together in solidarity against terrorism. The advantage of a coalition with Russia is that instead of a Cold War that is brewing, we could become allies against the terror that is centered in the Middle-east and create a friend rather than a foe. It would mean that Europe and the United States would have to drop their demand for regime change, a sore spot for Russia who has been an ally of Syria for several years. Is it better to compromise and make a long-lasting blow to terrorism, or be stubborn and allow a Cold War to begin because we cannot negotiate a truce with a SuperPower that may come in handy one day in this topsy-turvy world?
Vladimir Putin would be a hero at home, as would NATO and the United States. If that is not a winning situation, I don't know what is! There is a time to be stubborn, and there is a time to negotiate. I would ask in all sincerity of NATO and the United States exactly what time it is now that France has suffered such a major attack, and one is sure to follow in the United States and Russia. The quicker we eliminate the threat, the less money we spend, and the danger to all of our nations may be mitigated to a point that we will not have to suffer as France, Russia, and London already have in recent years. Other alternatives are bleak in my opinion and not worth the risk. Instead of a Cold War, Russia may believe that we are there to threaten Rusian forces by the overbearance of our ships and troops. The coming days and weeks could be a powder keg ready to explode. If it were me, I would choose to fight together and create an ally and maybe a little more stability in the Middle-east. What about you guys? What do you want from this situation in consideration of the consequences of attempting to force Russias hand?
I believe diplomacy is the answer to this crisis in the making and not the kind that comes out of a gun barrel. We are better than that, and so is the French. We hold sway over NATO and we know it, so in my mind, there is no other path to follow. We make one small concession and may protect ourselves from a France-like incident. Think of the people, not politics and regime change. We all deserve better than that.
1
1
1
