Obama and the Problem With American Muslims

Here's the problem with Muslim-Americans: There is no real problem at all.

Incredibly, since the rise of al-Qaida, the attacks on the World Trade Center, and more than a decade of a massive U.S. war on terror aimed at radical Islamists, we have come to discover that Muslim Americans have been remarkably loyal to our nation.

In fact, the few instances of domestic terrorism have been sporadic, isolated, and in some cases could easily be attributed to the mental health conditions of the perpetrators.

And here's another surprise: President Obama has offered a smart strategy for dealing with radical Islamic terrorism.

It's his implementation that falls woefully short.

When the president gave his recent address to the nation from the Oval Office, there were three things I liked about the speech.

First, he made it crystal clear that ISIS and other radical terrorists are a form of Islam.

Obama said such terrorists are "embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West."

This is quite significant because the Obama administration had seemingly gone out of its way to insist terrorists like ISIS were not Islamic at all.

The late Arnaud de Borchgrave, the famed correspondent, put it best in the days after 9/11 when he said, "America has not declared war on Islam, radical Islam has declared war on America."

Of the billion people on the earth who identify themselves as Islamic, most are good, God-fearing people who have many of the same aspirations as Christians, Jews, Hindus, and peoples of other faiths.

On the homefront American Muslims have been proven to be a good group: a hard-working, entrepreneurial, family-oriented people focused on finding their share of the American dream.

We should never allow a small number of radicalized extremists and terrorists to define a whole people.

I do not believe a ban on the entry of Muslims into the United States is consistent with either our values or the facts about Muslims. (Besides the fact it's bad for our global standing and our economy.)

Obama does not want our war on terror to be considered a war on Islam. That's smart and sensible, but it's not new. It was the same policy first promulgated by George W. Bush.

At the same time we must realize that within Islam, there are dangers for the West.

We are seeing that across the Middle East today, with mass beheadings, crucifixions, and a persecution of Christians unparalleled in history.

The second thing in Obama's speech I liked was hearing of his commitment to fighting such extremists and vowing to "destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us."

"Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al-Qaida's leadership," he said.

This is true, and Obama deserves credit here, as does George W. Bush, whose "war on terror" policies Obama not only embraced, but, in some cases, expanded.

However, Obama's specific policy of "destroying" ISIS has fallen far short of his goal.

News reports suggest that administration has stymied our military from striking ISIS hiding places and oil tanker trucks to avoid killing civilians.

New York GOP Rep. Peter King recently said all of the U.S. airstrikes to-date have had a "minimal impact" against ISIS.

The former acting CIA Director Mike Morell told Charlie Rose the administration declined to strike ISIS-controlled oil wells to avoid "environmental damage."

It's a shocking revelation — and such constraints explain how ISIS has been able to generate an estimated $300 million to $400 million annually for its global terror operations.

More than a year has passed since Obama ordered airstrikes against ISIS, and we have little to show for it.

ISIS still controls a massive swathe of Syria and Iraq — the size of the state of Indiana — and has been able to launch military-style attacks in Lebanon, Libya, France, and now the United States.

As Obama policies have given ISIS time to gestate, some Republicans have been calling for "boots on the ground."

That's not a wise move either. Obama fears, rightfully, that we will face another quagmire like Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said: "We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield."

"ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq. But they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops, draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits."

OK, I am nodding my head in agreement.

Obama further detailed his plan: "The strategy that we are using now — airstrikes, Special Forces, and working with local forces who are fighting to regain control of their own country — that is how we'll achieve a more sustainable victory. And it won't require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil."

Fine with me.

Still, it appears we have failed to systematically take basic steps to crush ISIS — by cutting their oil revenue streams and closing Turkey's border to ISIS. We should be giving Turkey an ultimatum: Close your border to ISIS or leave NATO.

Let's not blame decent Americans who identify themselves as Muslim or others from countries who have long been friendly to the United States. But let's focus on Islamic extremists here at home and abroad — those who preach and support a violent jihad — and crush them.

Why can't we accomplish this?

Christopher Ruddy is CEO and editor of Newsmax Media Inc. Read more Christopher Ruddy Insider articles — Click Here Now.