“But why can’t we just take out these bastards?” This question, rather surprisingly, came from the mouth of CNN’s senior White House correspondent, not from someone at Fox News or a member of the Tea Party. It was addressed to the President of the United States. The aforementioned illegitimates – perhaps in more ways than one – are the members of Isis, or Isil as Barack Obama consistently refers to them.
Mr Obama, who was addressing a press conference in Turkey at the G20 summit in the wake of the brutal massacre by terrorists in Paris, did not flinch – bluntly telling Jim Acosta that he had just spent the past three questions answering “that very question”.
The CNN correspondent did preamble his pointed enquiry by saying many of his countrymen were feeling frustrated “that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, (and) it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on Isis”. But he could not resist the headline-grabbing punch line, which the all-too-grateful media pounced upon moments later.
In the absence of a scientific survey, it is difficult to say whether the CNN correspondent was indeed summing up the feelings of most Americans, though there can be no doubt that he was speaking for the vocal majority.
Yet in one of his best ever (unscripted) expositions, Mr Obama remained unmoved. He steadfastly and convincingly defended the US strategy against Isis – which limits itself to the use of intelligence and airstrikes – saying it would be a mistake to occupy Iraqi and Syrian cities because that would raise a host of other problems. Sort of: ‘Been there, done that. Got the bloodstained T-Shirt.’
Speaking in a language every man in the street could understand, Mr Obama also laid down a gauntlet: “If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think somehow their advisers are better than the chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them.
“And we can have that debate. But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I’m too busy for that.”
Since he’s not seeking re-election, the US President has the luxury of being able to speak his mind. But he should still be commended for doing so when the overwhelming pressure on him is to put boots on the ground.
Yet, even though the events we witnessed on our screens in Paris were horrendous, and despite the fact that they are likely to be repeated elsewhere (one official said it’s a question of when, not if), Mr Obama should be commended for taking the common-sense approach that exemplifies the wisdom of someone who has learnt from others’ past mistakes.
The biggest problem with the Isis question is that there is no ready answer. We do not even know what to call this situation. Is it a war? Is it terrorism? Is it a combination of the two? We have not even got as far as coining a term.
What we do know is that this battle is markedly different from fighting someone like Hitler because it involves figuring out those in our communities who may cause us harm; while at the same time, ensuring we do not stigmatise Muslims, and seeking ways to stop people becoming radicalised in the first place.
This is no mean feat and will take time, but it is a far better strategy than attempting to ‘take them out’ because all that will achieve is many other lives being ‘taken out’ in the process. Haven’t we already seen enough of that?