Katie Pavlich: The new sobriety of the 2016 presidential race

By now we’re all well aware of the atrocities carried out by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Paris last week, which left at least 129 dead and hundreds injured. France is changed, Paris is changed and the status of ISIS as a serious terrorism powerhouse in the world has been elevated to a whole new level. 

Although the attack didn’t happen on American soil, the United States and the Western world are paying close attention — and so are the candidates on both sides of the political aisle running for president in 2016. 

{mosads}Just hours before ISIS carried out the worst terror attack in France since World War II, President Obama argued during an interview on ABC News that the group was “contained” and not getting stronger. 

“What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave. But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain,” Obama said, using an alternate acronym for the group. “What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We’ve made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters and part of our goal has to be to recruit more effective Sunni partners in Iraq to really go on offense rather than simply engage in defense.” 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the president’s statements, and retired military leaders, including former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, have flat out said current strategy isn’t working. 

“We’ve had the second largest terrorist attack in Western Europe since 9/11, the largest since Madrid in 2004,” Morell said during an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday. “When you put those two things together and you put together this attempt to build an attack capability in the West, I think it’s now crystal clear to us that our strategy, our policy vis-à-vis ISIS is not working and it’s time to look at something else.”  

Some have called criticism of Obama’s strategy in the region a politicization of the tragedy; in reality, we must accept where we now are, and where we are going, as a nation, in our fight against the terror army. 

There are two main issues presenting themselves on the campaign trail. The first is how to handle emotional calls for the United States to take in new refugees. The second issue is how to handle the spread of ISIS overseas and into Western nations. 

As I’ve written before, the U.S. should be overly cautious when deferring to “tolerance” and “morality” for refugee acceptance. Although the White House claims refugees will be vetted, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly warned there is no system in place to vet refugees for terrorism. After what we saw in
Paris, where at least one attacker made his way to France as a “refugee” from Syria with a passport, a reconsideration of refugee policy from terrorism hot spots is in order. 

Republican presidential candidates have offered a variety of solutions to the ISIS proliferation problem, ranging from ground troops to no-fly zones to bombing ISIS’s capital of Raqqa and more. They’ve recognized the enemy for what it is and demand the United States do more to destroy the terror army before it strikes American civilians at home. It isn’t clear which solution is best, but it’s a step above sticking with the current, failed strategy. 

During the Democratic debate on Saturday night, which was quickly altered to focus on foreign policy after the attacks in Paris on Friday, front-runner and inevitable nominee Hillary Clinton offered her ideas but failed to acknowledge the role she played during her time in the Obama administration that left chaos in the Middle East from Libya to Iraq. 

Clinton’s record on foreign policy is married to Obama’s, despite feeble attempts to distance herself. What we’re seeing now with ISIS is a direct result of the president’s political decision to pull out of Iraq during a time in which peace was won but before the country was stable enough. Clinton backed that move. Based on the status of the Middle East as a whole, with multiple failed states in the region acting as safe havens for a variety of terrorism organizations, the former secretary of State is going to have to answer for the chaos she left behind. Most importantly, she’ll have to explain what she’d do differently in the future should she land back in the White House. 

We’re in a war with ISIS and we need a leader who understands exactly what that means. The current administration has made it clear Obama won’t change course or strategy in the global war against Islamic terror, particularly against ISIS. In fact, this administration won’t even acknowledge the enemy or the fight we are in. The next president, the next commander in chief, has a duty to do things differently. 

It is far past time for serious, reality-based decisions to be made, and the attack on Paris offers a new level of sobriety to the discourse of the 2016 presidential election. 

Pavlich is the editor for Townhall.com and a Fox News contributor.