Meanwhile, in a pale imitation of the Iraq war coalition that President George W. Bush assembled of some 49 countries, the Obama administration managed to wrangle nine countries into joining with us against the Islamic State. But to do what?

If you listen to the president, it is to make the terrorist state “manageable.” If you listen to Secretary of State John Kerry, he says, “Contrary to what you sort of heard in the politics of our country”– from the president (!) — “the President is totally committed; there is a strategy that is clear, becoming more clear by the day. And it really relies on a holistic approach to ISIL. That is to say that we need to do kinetic, we need to attack them in ways that prevent them from taking over territory, that bolster the Iraqi security forces, others in the region who are prepared to take them on, without committing troops of our own, obviously.” Obviously not, because we’re totally committed up to the point where we are not. After all, Kerry says, “that’s a redline for everybody here, no boots on the ground.” Not the Islamic State’s beheading of American journalists or slaughtering of Christians or terrorizing of the population, but U.S. ground troops are the red line. Is there any wonder aggressors around the world have pounced?

Kerry assures us: “There is no containment policy for ISIL. They’re an ambitious, avowed genocidal, territorial-grabbing, Caliphate-desiring, quasi state within a regular army. And leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us. So there is no issue in our minds about our determination to build this coalition, go after this.” Unless, of course, this means boots on the ground.

AD

AD

Now contrast the diplomatic minuets and double talk with the only good news internationally today, as The Post reports: “Ahmed Abdi Godane, a co-founder of a network blamed for its brutal tactics in Somalia and for the attack on an upscale Kenyan shopping mall last year, was killed Monday in an attack carried out by U.S. drones and other aircraft, the Pentagon said.” Now, there is some atrocity prevention.

The lesson here is not that diplomacy is always meaningless. It is rather that we need to be clear-eyed about whom we are dealing with and understand that with determined foes it is military action or the threat of military action (or economic penalties) that can usually move the needle in our direction.

From the get-go, this president seemed to believe that he could shame our adversaries into good behavior or ingratiate himself with those who don’t care how we behave, only that we are nonbelievers.

AD

AD

The Israeli writer Ruthie Blum insightfully summed up Obama’s moral confusion: “What Obama has never been able to get through his community-organizer brain is that it is not enough for him to empathize with the grievances of his enemies, particularly not the genocidal maniacs in question. Without actually swearing allegiance to the interpretation of Islam whose objective it is to catapult the modern world into the Dark Ages, there is no way to avoid beheading. And given the nature of internecine Islamist strife, even doing so does not guarantee immunity from bloodletting.”

This is why his “outreach” to Iran, repudiation of enhanced interrogation techniques, the Cairo speech, condemnation of an anti-Islamic video (that had nothing to do with the Libya attack), excoriating our ally Israel for failing to make peace with Palestinians (who never take “yes” for an answer), commitment to a Palestinian state and finger-wagging at Israel when it takes on terrorists militarily (which inevitably causes civilian casualties) have earned us nothing — zero, zilch good will — either from Iran and its allies or from the Islamic State. What works is showing resolve to destroy jihadists. What doesn’t work is bailing out of Iraq, leaving no troops in Afghanistan, flip-flopping on the red line in Syria and letting a genocidal war drag on for three years. What doesn’t work is slashing our military while threats increase.

Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise tried to stay in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s good graces. They began reset, let Russia into the World Trade Organization and tried to slow down human rights sanctions. When that didn’t stop Putin from pursuing his ambitions to re-create the Russian empire, the administration was taken aback. The nice words and political appeasement were worthless (!?!) as were the half-hearted sanctions which we now decide to increase after a cease-fire has cemented Russia’s victory. Declaring that he is so 19th-century and offering “off ramps” were meaningless. Not even telling Putin he was really losing made a difference.

AD

AD