The thing about Democratic candidates’ Daesh strategy is that there is none
The Democrats fell short to deliver a plan on how to defeat Daesh in Saturday's debate. (AFP/Josh Haner)
Click here to add Beirut as an alert
Disable alert for Beirut,
Click here to add Bernie Sanders as an alert
Disable alert for Bernie Sanders,
Click here to add DES MOINES as an alert
Disable alert for DES MOINES,
Click here to add Hillary Clinton as an alert
Disable alert for Hillary Clinton,
Click here to add Iowa as an alert
Disable alert for Iowa,
Click here to add Paris as an alert
Disable alert for Paris,
Click here to add Time as an alert
Disable alert for Time,
Click here to add US military as an alert
Disable alert for US military
There’s been no shortage of jab supply concerning Middle East policies of the Republican candidates, but less discussed are the Daesh (ISIS) fighting strategies being put forth by the Democrats.
Judging by the latest Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa last Saturday, it’s not a whole lot better than Trump and Carson.
Like most of the world, plenty of Americans are looking for solace after the Paris attacks by asking questions about how the US can prevent Daesh attacks on its own soil. But instead of talking actual strategy, candidates talked loudly about the horrors of Daesh and dodged pointed questions.
Hillary Clinton made a grand statement about “laying out, in detail” her plan for action, which never materialized. And when asked about her political decisions during the Iraq war and Libyan uprising may have allowed the militant group to thrive, she deflected, citing terror attacks like the 1983 US military base attack in Beirut and 9/11 as evidence of a long-running problem in the Middle East.
Martin O’Malley’s argument unfolded in a similar fashion, saying “new thinking, fresh approaches and new leadership” were needed to defeat Daesh, but failed to say what that actually meant.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders declared Daesh was a “barbarous organization” that should be eliminated, but in almost the same breath he brought up the American economy in an awkward non-sequitur, according to The New Yorker. He then slithered out of an answer by bringing up, yet again, the impending doom of climate change, says Time.
By Elizabeth Tarbell