For example, National Review is declaring it is time to "wage real war" in its latest editorial. "Islamic terrorists' war on us has returned to American shores, and it will continue here as long as we refuse to exercise the tactics necessary to stamp it out," it boasts.
What are these tactics? "More robust and deliberate" efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, more aid to "our Kurdish allies" in Syria.
Of course, we have no been involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan for far longer than we were in World War II and we have nothing to show for it in either country. Nor has the continuing American effort to overthrow Assad contributed much to global security or Americas' safety.
Still, that's a quibble. The heart of the editorial is:
[T] he power of the Islamic State is not just in its material. Its success in evangelizing its murderous ideology is a problem the United States national-security apparatus has failed to address. Convincing young, disaffected, Muslim men and women that terrorism is not a bright future will require more than "positive messaging" from government Twitter accounts. It will require discrediting the ideology that has appealed to so many in the West and the Middle East. And it will require demonstrating that we will deal swiftly and pitilessly with those who engage in, or support, terrorism.According to recent surveys, as many as one in four British Muslims endorsed or excused bombings within "their" own country, and the numbers dramatically increase for the younger generation [DATA: Young Muslims in the West Are a Ticking Time Bomb, Increasingly Sympathising with Radicals, Terror, by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, March 22, 2016] According to a study from the Center for Security Policy, about a fifth of American Muslims believe the use of force is justified to make Sharia the law of the land [Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels of Support for Islamic Supremacists' Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad, Center for Security Policy, June 23, 2015].
[It's Time for a Long-Term Strategy to Utterly Crush Islamic Terrorism, National Review, June 12, 2016]
Something tells me a plan to convince Muslims to abandon the more militant traditions of their ancestral religion will go about as well as conservatives' efforts to win the black vote.
In many ways, "terrorism" is also a red herring. After all, it is only a tactic. The goal, for most of these groups, is implementing Sharia as the law of the land. And mass immigration is a far more effective tactic than bombings and shootings [DHS Agent: West Blind To Jihad 'Through Immigration, WND, June 7, 2016]. And, if mass immigration continues, eventually they will get what they want.
National Review tells us "this is a context between those who champion freedom and pluralism and those who would impose tyrannical theocracy." But what does this even mean?
Judging from the Main Stream Media Narrative of the last few weeks, a Narrative supported by the Beltway Right, "freedom and pluralism" means an openness to mass immigration, especially by Muslims. Things like "pluralism" and "diversity," now praised as the defining ideals of America, aren't values in themselves. They're simply nullities, vacuums to be filled by something else.
Islam, whatever its faults, provides an identity to second generation immigrants. As even according to conservatives America has no real culture or identity other than "diversity," why wouldn't they choose their ancestral faith?
The National Review editorial ends with a statement that "the West must... take the fight to those who seek to destroy [our way of life.]" But what does that mean? It can't mean "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." because they fired Ann Coulter for that.
American servicemen are already involved in the state against the Islamic State. We've been screwing around in the Middle East for more than a decade. What has it accomplished?
The truth is we don't really have a terrorist problem. We have an immigration problem. We let a huge alienated population into our country and then act surprised when there are predictable results. By urging the same kinds of pointless tactics George W. Bush used for eight years, National Review is doing more harm than good.