It didn’t make much news the other day. It wasn’t on the front pages of the newspapers. It seems some extremists invaded some Christian towns in Syria and took a group of about 100 Christians into their custody. These extremists about ten days before seizing these Christians put on a show in Libya by beheading Christians on a beach. This extremist group will probably force the Christians to convert to their Extremism, sell the women and children, and behead or burn those who won’t convert.
One thing you can’t call these extremists is by the religion they profess is guiding them. Which seems strange since when they capture people as they did with the guy from New Hampshire James Foley they seem to give the guy a break, at least for a while before they cut off his head, if he converted, or pretended to convert, to their religion which we must not identify.
You see last week in Washington, D.C., because of the horror being perpetrated by these extremists a meeting of 60 nations took place to figure out what to do about them. There was no other extremist group that all these nations were worried about. It was only this one group. But it was agreed that no one from America would mention that this group was connected with a certain religion even though anyone who can read the name that the group calls itself would quickly be able to figure it out.
The rationale is that because others in this religion don’t agree or approve of what it is doing then we will pretend that they are not a part of that religion even though they say they are and they murder people who aren’t members of it just because of that fact.
Now the way I look at it is if an extremist group of Christians were going around beheading people in the name of Christianity and they called themselves the Christian State I’d not be reluctant to have them called Christian terrorists or Christian radicals or Christian monsters. I’m at a loss to see how that affects my Christianity. It seems it is better to properly identify the people who are the enemy so an effective plan can be made to defeat them rather than pretending they are part of some amorphous world wide body.
Which brings me to John Kerry, who happens to be our current Secretary of State. He had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on February 19 discussing this matter. It was headlined: “Our Plan For Countering Violent Extremism.” (It is behind a pay wall but if you don’t have access you must go to the library to read it. It is one of the most telling pieces of a confused policy ever put forth.) After reading it I had no doubt our country’s foreign policy is in dire straights with him having anything to do with it.
He says in the opening paragraph: “Today we are asked to wage a new war against a new enemy.” Following his next sentence he identifies it: “The rise of violent extremism represents the pre-eminent challenge of the young 21st Century.”
What is confusing though, is a little bit later he writes: “We’ve combated violent extremism before. We know there are tools that work.” If we’ve done it before I’d like to know when. If we’ve done it before how is it now a new war? If we used tools before that were successful then what are they? Kerry doesn’t answer. Rather, he gives an example of the world coming together to combat challenges by noting our success with Ebola. I wondered if this is how he plans to fight this extremist group by sending in medical help.
This violent extremist group has control over vast territory in two countries and as far as I can tell from history we have never fought such an evil force before. The brutality of Nazism comes close to it.
Kerry is clear in what this war doesn’t involve. He says: “There is no room for Islamophobia or anti-Semitism.” I guest that leaves room for what is going on which is the slaughter of Christian? Is that all right? It sort of appalling that the murder of Christians done in the name of that religion that I can’t mention is ignored. Too bad this isn’t a Christian nation concerned with our fellow Christians.
Our secretary of state tells us “The most basic issue is good governance. It may not sound exciting but it is vital.” I’d say it doesn’t sound exciting. Identifying it as such sounds stupid.
The most basic issue is stopping the slaughter of Christians and others. They are being slaughtered on a daily basis by this extremist group and it has nothing to do with “good governance.” It has everything to do with a murderous ideology by a group of individuals who believe their religion compels them to act as barbarians.
Kerry says “We must identify zones of greatest vulnerability.” I’d suggest we identify the zones where these terrorists are living and act against them.
Kerry says: “We have to transform the environments that give birth to these movements.” He doesn’t seem to see that the need is now. We started trying to transform the environment in Iraq and Afghanistan over ten years ago and are still failing.
Here’s how he ends his article full of platitudes. It shows how discombobulated his thought process is and how poorly America is being served. ‘The 20th Century was defined by the struggle to overcome depression, slavery, fascism and totalitarianism.” (I thought the slavery issue was decided in the 19th Century but I guess John knows better.)
He goes on: “Now it’s our turn.” He says it is our turn but leaves it up in the air as to what we are to do. But let’s read on:
“The rise of violent extremism challenges every one of us, our communities, our nations and the global rule of law. But the extremist forces arrayed against us require that we charge forward in the name of decency, civility and reason.”
That’s how he ended. Seriously. That’s our policy for fighting these radical terrorists who are beheading people in the name of a religion we cannot mention. Just imagine the general leading the Marines onto the island of Iwo Jima telling them “when we hit the beach charge forward in the name of decency, civility and reason.” If we were lead by people like Kerry back then I suggest we’d all be speaking Japanese.