The Killing of Al-Baghdadi

Watching President Trump’s announcement of the killing of Al-Baghdadi – and the capture of a huge cache of intelligence – it seemed to me that his words were precisely what was needed at a time like this.  And watching the Twitterverse and talking heads pontificate about his language and wording, I am even more convinced that his blunt, derisive tone, is not only what those who voted for him expect, but eighteen years into the global war on terror, that that blunt, derisive tone is what the world needed to hear.



You could almost hear a collective boasting of pride by Americans that we’re still able to hunt down and kill those murdering, raping, torturing terrorists, even if it takes years to do so. 



But that collective pride was pushed back by the talking heads who to this day continue to argue that killing terrorists only serves to “galvanize” ISIS and other terror organizations in their will to destroy the United States. 



Despite the comments from Michael Morrell and any number of so-called smart people on television, I have never seen (even during my tenure as the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, when I received regular CIA briefings) proof that our war on terror or the killing of Osama bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi, has resulted in any less anti-American activity by American-hating Islamic terrorists. 



President Trump’s insistence on colorful language to depict Al-Baghdadi as a coward cowering in a dead-end tunnel, dying a horrible death (and killing children as he detonated his own suicide vest) is language chosen by his National Security advisors for a very specific reason.  His language rejects the false and failed diplomacy of appeasement.  It also reminds Americans who may be considering joining ISIS or other terrorist organizations that doing so is not a brave move, but one which very well might result in them dying a horrific, cowardly death at the hands of the United States military. 



POTUS’ language tells those wannabe terrorists that you’re signing up to die horribly in a dark tunnel. 



But back to the appeasers, especially former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.  In a media appearance this week he said the killing of Al-Baghdadi would only serve to “galvanize” ISIS members.  Let’s think about that logic.



Is James Clapper saying that in order to defeat ISIS we must first capitulate to ISIS?  Is James Clapper saying that in World War II the storming of the beaches at Normandy only served to galvanize Hitler’s army?  Is James Clapper claiming that President Nixon’s decision to bomb Hanoi, only served to galvanize the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army?  If I recall correctly Normandy was the beginning of the end of World War II on the Western Front.  The bombing of Hanoi brought the North Vietnamese to the table in the Paris Peace Talks. 



Enemies respond to strength and resolve, not olive branches and weakness.



President Trump rejected the diplomacy of appeasement, opting instead for the blunt, direct language that represents the strength and determination of a first world superpower that will not be pushed around.



Michael Brown served as the Under Secretary of Homeland Security and Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President George W. Bush.  You can follow him on Twitter @michaelbrownusa.