The West’s Response to Brussels Is Wrong

And the correct response isn't difficult to imagine.

Am I the only person who sees the lacking vision in Western thought today? It does not appear that any of our leaders (or potential leaders) has a reasonable response to the tragedy in Brussels, and a reasonable response is not too difficult to imagine.

From ABC News: President Obama explains to nodding press why he's in Cuba watching baseball instead of responding to an attack on a member NATO nation.

From ABC News: President Obama explains to a nodding press why he’s in Cuba watching baseball instead of responding to an attack on a member NATO nation.

Yesterday’s dreadful attack to the home of the European Union will exemplify the two most common responses to such tragedy, and the only right response will be ignored. I find it infuriating. These two responses will get the majority of press in coming days:

  1. Silence. This is the status quo: Ignore the issue. Barack Obama will come out with a seemingly presidential response that will satisfy the press, but he will quickly return to his personal agenda (which is currently praising Fidel Castro for his Cuban dictatorship). In fact, he already has. He looks like he enjoyed the baseball game.
  2. Suspicion. The media will pander to the fear that they think Americans have. It’s a safe bet that the Brussels terrorists were not refugees from Syria nor a few of the billion Muslims who do not want to terrorize the world (as they were not in any terrorist attack—not one—since the Syrian refugee crisis started). It’s the typical Trump response: I told you so. As if.

There are only two rational responses from the leaders of the West:

  1. Sympathy. Our prayers and concern go out to those mourning the tragedy in Belgium.
  2. Support. Since this is yet another coordinated attack from ISIS, assemble, strategize and respond.

Sympathy and support. Not too complicated. Even the Russians get it.

Since France—a founding member—was attacked, NATO has had the authority to go after the attackers, but didn’t. Only Russia responded with a coordinated attack on ISIS. Now the second NATO country—another founding member, no doubt—has been attacked. Perhaps Russia will come to NATO’s aid and give sympathy and support to the victims of the radical ideology that is wreaking havoc on the world.

My, how tables have turned.

Are you a debater? Join me in Colorado in July for the Training Minds Camp!

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

  • David Carter

    Mostly agree, as part of NATO we would be happy to join in some coordinated response to ISIS but the rest of Europe has no stomach for it so we will continue with our actions in the Middle East, however you want to label them, helping others slowly pushing ISIS out of Iraq? BUT please don’t label Russia as anything but a self serving supporter of the brutal Assad regime. With Russia’s help bombing Syrian rebels (Not ISIS) and the Turks bombimg and harassing the Kurds Assad is closer to his preferred outcome the West choosing between Assad and ISIS.