Veteran’s Wife Asks McCain/Kinzinger: “Why are we funding ‘moderates’ to fight ISIS?”
What do women really want? National security. Women want protection for our families. We want protection from radical extremists and lone wolves. We want protection for families throughout the Western world. And we know that that protection does not come at the hands of so-called vetted moderates.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) fielded questions from a welcoming band of brothers at Veterans Memorial Hall in Rockford Friday.
One question came from the wife of a Marine veteran:
The Obama administration has a habit of backing the wrong guys in a fight – the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; $212 million pledged to the Palestinian Authority. Now the President wants to give $500 million in lethal assistance to the Free Syrian Army.
The same Free Syrian Army that has been slaughtering Christians throughout Syria and torching churches in the name of Islam. You both voted to give it to him by the way.” (At this Senator McCain gestured that he took issue with the charge.)
I know that there are complexities with that bill. But my question is this, why can’t Congress come up with a better way to fight radical Islam than to give lethal assistance to the so-called moderate Muslims to fight on behalf of Western civilization? Is that the best we can do? How do we keep the score?
“I think you are mistaking Free Syrian Army for ISIS,” replied Kinzinger. “No sir,” was the response.
Rep. Kinzinger explained how the Free Syrian Army was fighting Bashar Assad and ISIS. He assured the audience that he and the senator were indeed backing the right guys in the fight.
Perhaps the Congressman and Senator are of the mindset that FSA atrocities are less substantive than those committed by Bashar Assad; as much of FSA’s human rights violations are downplayed by media here in the West.
It is hard to identify the moderates from the extremists – especially when they are collaborating one minute and infighting the next. But the question, ‘How do we keep the score?’ goes unanswered.
What is the return on our $500 million investment? Containment? Do we measure success by keeping radical Islam at bay; confined to the Middle East and North Africa? Are we to keep score by ratio of airstrikes to beheadings?
The rules of engagement dictate that our military cannot enter the mosques where cowards retreat. Forces cannot enter without probable cause the homes where insurgents hide or are harbored. Troops cannot fire upon suspected terrorists until it is certified that no civilians will be harmed. Our military must abide by rules against those who abide by none.
Politicians averse to accusations of torture, enemy maltreatment and partisanship fear bad PR more than they fear ISIS. They hold town hall meetings to justify fighting ISIS by proxy, airstrike and drone leaving our national security to moderates to fight on our behalf.
What women really want is for elected officials, especially elected veterans from the U.S. military, to give our men and women in uniform a fighting chance. Stop providing lethal assistance to those whose interest is to annihilate our own. Lift the rules of engagement. Let our military protect our national interests by whatever means possible so that we are not put into a position to have to vet recipients of lethal assistance by who is moderate and who isn’t.
