To those who did not read George Orwell’s 1984 and may be unfamiliar, at least give a quick read to the Wikipedia entry for Newspeak. Newspeak is what came immediately to mind when I heard the Obama administration unveil their new approach to Islamic terrorism.
The magnificent term is “strategic patience.” Ahh, what could be wrong with this? After all, the administration’s critics are always claiming that the Obambis don’t have a strategy for defeating ISIS and other Islamic terror groups. It is good to have a strategy, is it not?
And then there is “patience.” Is not patience a great virtue? Why, the very question answers itself. Of course it is. So, in combination, “strategic patience” must be a very, very good thing.
It is, usually, a good thing to have a strategy — so long as that strategy has any chance of actually doing something. But patience is not always a good thing. Not if it allows ISIS to become entrenched and even expand its reach. If a gang of Islamists is beheading, burning, and crucifying, then patience isn’t going to do much to save the innocents.
So, the usual suspects will bleat on about how wise Obama is, not to rush in like that over-achiever George W. Bush. On this issue, they will, again, simply be admiring the emperor who does not happen to be clothed. “Strategic patience” is just another way of saying “leading from behind.” Both of which are merely ways to appear to be doing something and hoping that someone else does the heavy lifting.
Except in today’s world there is no one else who is both willing and able to defeat ISIS and other Islamist terrorists. Those who praise Obama’s use of “strategic patience” are merely engaging in Duckspeak.