The Real End Game of Trump's Order
Public service reminder: Donald Trump took office following eight years of Barack Obama’s feckless foreign policy. Yes, on the campaign trail last year, Obama repeatedly made this ridiculous assertion: “No foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.” But whether it was Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, or dozens of other attacks, the jihadis who perpetrated these attacks were radicalized by the Islamic State Obama had a hand in creating. Bad vetting was bad policy, and people died as a result. Trump’s lawful travel ban, however ham-handedly enacted, is all part of his strategy to actually protect the country — unlike his predecessor.
A second point related to the first: After 9/11, George W. Bush was eviscerated by Democrats for “not doing enough” to prevent the attacks. But Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 terrorist cell settled into American suburbs on Clinton’s watch, before Bush was elected. That also would be the same Bill Clinton who passed on not one but two chances to take out Osama. Trump would love not to repeat such mistakes or allow similar vulnerabilities.
Hence, over the weekend, Trump suggested he’s thinking of rewriting his travel ban order before appealing the Ninth Circuit’s decision on it. The courts are clearly getting it wrong, but Trump would indeed be well served to firm up the order itself. He’s not guilty of setting up some bigoted Muslim blockade. After all, the countries on the ban list — Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan — aren’t exactly peaceful places right now. He is trying to protect Americans, and the same leftists who oppose his attempts now would really let him have it if there is another attack.