Suppose a stranger came up to you on the street and said, “Yes we can.” What would you do? Walk away in case he became irrational? Say, “That’s nice, good for you”? Or ask, “You can do what”? The last is the most logical approach. I wish we had used it before the elections of 2008 and 1012. But we didn’t.

Perhaps the problem is best illustrated by the placards carried by many pro-immigration demonstrators and Cinco de Mayo celebrants. The slogan was later adopted by the Obama campaign. You probably saw the placards on TV. But did you look closely? 

The demonstrators meant to say “SÍ SE PUEDE,” meaning “Yes it’s possible” or Yes we can.” But note the small accent over the “i.” Many of the placards, like this one, lacked the accent and therefore meant “If we can.” True, it’s just a small mark, but there is a big difference between “Yes” and “If.” I know that, and I had only six weeks of Spanish one summer session at college, a long time ago.
Apparently many of the demonstrators were beneficiaries of “bilingual education” and wound up semi-literate in both languages – which may have been the motive for “bilingual education” in the first place. What better way to produce poorly educated people who will work at – or below – the minimum wage, and will always vote Democratic? That way you please both the pro-unlimited-immigration Left and the cheap-labor, big-business Right – assuming you can tell the difference. I can’t.
So we have regressed from “Yes we can” to “If we can.” But the question remains: Can do what? If we don’t know the answer to that question, how do we know whether we, in fact, can? More to the point, how do we know when we – that is, our government – can’t?
No we can’t name our enemies.
The president and his administration can’t use the terms “radical Islam” or “extremist Islam” or “Islamist radicals” or “extremist Muslims” – or any term that includes the words Islam or Muslim either as nouns or adjectives. The purpose of these terms is to describe whom we are fighting, and to distinguish them from the majority of peaceful Muslims.
One would think that the administration, graduates of prestigious universities, would understand this. One would be wrong. Instead, they bend so far over backward so as not to offend any Muslims that they fall on their posteriors in a spasm of political correctness. Which, of course, really means factual incorrectness.
And now a White House conference discusses “violent extremism.” What? Violent agnostics attacking believers? Violent Buddhists attacking Episcopalians? Violent Canadians attacking Bulgarians? Violent cabinet makers attacking locksmiths?
But how can we defeat enemies if we can’t even identify them?
No we can’t name our enemies’ victims.
President Obama described what happened at a Paris kosher market as, “…randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” No, it wasn’t random. A radicalized Muslim deliberately targeted Jews and murdered four – not just a “bunch of folks.” And when 21 men were beheaded by ISIS allies in Libya, a White House aide described the victims as “Egyptian citizens,” rather than what got them killed – Coptic Christians.
Refusing to identify violent Islamists may – may – be explained by reluctance to alienate nonviolent Muslims. But what excuse can there possibly be for refusing to identify their victims – Jews and Christians?
But how can we aid the victims if we can’t even identify them?
No we can’t aim for victory.
The administration talks about ending wars “responsibly.” The president talks about how he ended the war in Iraq. No, he withdrew all American troops, against the advice of responsible generals. He ended our participation in the war – he didn’t end the war. And now, the northern part of Iraq is controlled by ISIS. Cities like Fallujah and Ramadi, which so many of our guys died to take, are now in enemy hands again.
Leaving a war zone doesn’t end the war. Leaving a war zone before victory is secure is called bugging out, or abandoning our post, or – more directly – defeat. Victory may be hard to achieve. But if it isn’t even our goal, it is impossible to achieve.
No we can’t recognize reality.
ISIS allies in Libya beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians, then were so proud of their achievement that they posted the video on the Internet. The civilized world condemned this atrocity. But President Obama prefaced his remarks with, “Should, in fact, the video be authentic…”
Yes, someone who was trained as a lawyer naturally wants to verify evidence. But the net effect of Obama’s preface was to significantly weaken his condemnation – which may have been his intention. Yes, going off half-cocked on the basis of hearsay would be wrong. But waiting until the facts are 100% certain often means waiting forever – and doing nothing. In this world, very few things are 100% certain.
In contrast to President Obama’s tepid criticism of what happened half a world away in Libya, watch French Premier Manuel Valls heart-felt, no-holds-barred condemnation of anti-Semitic incidents in his own country. When our leaders must take a back seat to the French in their forceful denunciation of evil, you know we’re in deep trouble. True, talk isn’t action. But talk is a necessary prelude to action.
In order to (4) combat evil, one must first (3) denounce evil. And to do that, one must have (2) recognized that it is evil, and – even before that – recognized that it (1) actually exists. To put it bluntly, our administration hasn’t yet taken step one.
And until it does, no we can’t.

●

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com