More on Obama: Fundamental mind shift includes less talk of war on terror

No expectation of victory

In an unsettling report acknowledging the very real possibility of anther terror attack on U.S. soil, the daily’s article titled, Feds face homegrown threats in fight against terrorism, states that American overreaction must be “staved off,” though many experts think we must learn to adapt to living with such risks, as Europeans and Israelis have.

To combat the threat, Obama has called for a new approach — a change in tone — to thwart terrorism.

You read that right.

Obama’s speeches and policy papers talked less of a war on terror than a long struggle of ideas to be won with diplomacy, foreign aid and international crime fighting. Improving Mideast relations and the U.S. image abroad will lessen the rage that drives thousands of young men into jihadist training camps, Obama argues.

“In calling it a war, we created an expectation that there would be something that looks like victory,” said Brian Jenkins, a RAND Corp. analyst who advised U.S. presidents. “This is going to be an enduring task. To move from ‘mission accomplished’ to ‘enduring task’ is a fundamental mind shift.”

Still, “we will probably have another attack in this country,” said R.P. Eddy, a former Clinton national security advisor now a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Center for Policing Terrorism. “No doubt.”

Of course the newspaper gets in their accolades to former Gov. Janet Napolitano — now Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security. They actually conclude that counter-terrorism experts say Napolitano’s experience suits her well to the challenge ahead.

Really?  America’s porous borders need to be addressed.  As Arizona governor, her dismal record in that regard was shameful.

Don’t take our word for it.   Here’s the article.

5 Responses to More on Obama: Fundamental mind shift includes less talk of war on terror

  1. Steve says:

    More foreign aid to terrorists? Now that’s the ticket!!!!

  2. Sideliner says:

    Too bad Bush didn’t think of cozying up to the terrorists. He was able to keep this nation safe since September 1, 2001 by calling these murderous fanatics exactly what they are. He did it by declaring a war on terror. Now BO wants a warmer approach, more understanding of what drives them and softer speech. Following that line of reasoning, maybe Bush could have done an even better job?

  3. Vince says:

    I like the double entendre headline. Very fitting!

  4. Eager One says:

    I heard AZ House Speaker Kirk Adams on the Bruce Jacob’s show this morning. I’m almost certain he said Arizona has the worst deficit of any state in the nation. Thank you, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano. Do you intend to replicate what you did in Arizona for the Feds? Her appointment was a farce. nothing more than political payback for her early endorsement of Obama.

  5. RA says:

    Actually, contrary to Obama’s claim, there was serious discussion of and action utilizing directed foreign aid to reduce Islamic extremism during George Bush’s tenure, at least as far back as 2002. Significant interest was expressed by the Bush administration in ‘moderating education’ approaches taken by Greg Mortenson (“Three Cups of Tea”) among others. It’s factually incorrect to claim that the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 was solely military – that it somehow lacked humanitarian aid, infrastructure development, and other approaches to the challenges presented by Muslim extremists.

    But you’ll never hear this from Obama or other liberals.

    I do fear that R.P. Eddy is right in that there will be a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during the Obama administration as the Dmeocrats embrace their “new” approaches, reduce security and enforcement, and fail to adequately address growing threats in the Middle East and Africa. Cross-border spillovers from the Mexican drug wars already have the potential to embarrass Napolitano. In neither case will the criminals involved require a 51-foot ladder.