Obama Deploys New Logo to Defeat ISIS

 

Chafing under criticism that they aren’t taking the threat from ISIS seriously, the State Department has launched an initiative to bring the barbarian terrorists to heel. Foregoing crude tactics like the threat of force or aggressive diplomacy, the Obama Administration has returned to what it knows best. They have created a logo:

2015_0220_cve_graphic

This doesn’t offend me as an American; it offends me as a graphic designer. That is a rough-looking pile of clip art. But if the seven fonts and eight colors prove insufficient to scare away the jihadists, State also has a blog post outlining their strategy to defeat Islamist terror solve violent extremism.

Their detailed plan? To ask commenters for suggestions:

This week, the White House hosted a Summit to Counter Violent Extremism to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence. These efforts have become even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks throughout the world. At the Summit, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “Our goal today is to take this chance to think broadly about how to prevent violent ideologies from taking hold, and how to prevent terrorist networks…from linking up with aggrieved groups elsewhere, and how to prevent them from thereby expanding their influence.”

Secretary Kerry described this effort as the “the defining fight of our generation” and a task not just for governments but everyone, including civil society, the faith community, foundations and philanthropists, and the private sector.  The Secretary urged the Summit participants to provide their ideas and suggestions on how we can counter violent extremism, and we ask you:

What solutions do you think are most critical to countering violent extremism?

We are so screwed.

If you would like to submit your ideas to the team that shipped James Taylor to Paris, here’s the link. But if you advocate a solution that requires a carrier group instead of MS Paint, get ready for a detailed IRS audit. The Obama administration might wear kid gloves when dealing with the Islamic State, but they’ll switch to brass knuckles for domestic critics.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 99 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Zafar:According to those Pinkos over at Slate:

    …Our enemies want us to associate them with Islam. Obama noted that al-Qaida and ISIS:

    … try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why [ISIS] presumes to declare itself the “Islamic State.” And they propagate the notion that America, and the West, generally, is at war with Islam. That’s how they recruit.

    This is the main thing Americans need to understand. The word Islam is central to our enemies’ strategy. The more you apply it to them, the more you help them. In his remarks, Obama called anti-Muslim bigotry “counterproductive,” noting that it would “aid terrorists.”

    …We must choose our language to thwart the enemy’s strategy…

    If only this was understood by people here. Alas…too many cheap political points to score, to think about how such poorly thought out strategies undermine America’s efforts.

    How’s that for an action that actually makes America weaker?  What is patriotic about demanding that the State Department do this?  Anything at all? I can’t see it.

    The definition of “patriotism” when the other Party’s guy is in power is always…say the opposite of the other Party’s guy.

    Many of the things I read on Ricochet may play well in the primaries, but honestly: to me they sound like crazy talk. America and the world will be far less safe than it is today if a US Administration is informed by these opinions or motivations. (And I don’t even think Obama has done such a stellar job. But it’s all relative.)

    I’m  not a US citizen, so it doesn’t per se matter what I think of the Right’s  foreign policy approach – but a lot of undecided Americans may look at the situation in the world, listen to some comments made to a friendly network, and decide that it’s just not safe to give the kids the keys to the car. (The crash in Iraq still being fresh in their minds.)

    That’s a real problem for a party that seems to increasingly require this kind of talk from competitors in its primaries.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    • #91
  2. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    AIG:

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: The Obama administration might wear kid gloves when dealing with the Islamic State

    Kid gloves on the way

    Don’t mind reality. Carry on.

    It takes Fairchild to raze a village.

    • #92
  3. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Man, all the standing around and lamenting our insufficient fondness for the enemy is about to make me sad.

    Kill their fighters, assassinate their leaders, burn their villages, decimate their tribes.

    And there will be peace.

    Until then, stop wasting lives for State Department resumes, where the deliverables are never due, and failure costs only a flag for a casket.

    • #93
  4. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    At least now we know what Julia’s been up to.

    • #94
  5. Howellis Inactive
    Howellis
    @ManWiththeAxe

    AIG:

     

    So again, we’re back to saying that at worst, he is repeating the same…ignorant…approach of Bush who thought that by bringing “democracy” to the ME, the underlying causes of terrorism would subside.

    Saying the enemy is a religious fanatic is not the same thing as saying that the problem is…religion.

    Which seems to be the only point that “conservatives” seem interested in making these days: why isn’t Obama calling out Islam as the problem?

    Well, because there’s a few million Muslims fighting on…our side…

    Right. So we’re back to my argument that…at best…this is the same failed approach as Bush.

    Bush was wrong then. Agreed. I thought so then. I still think so. But saying that Obama’s approach is the same as Bush’s approach is not a defense of Obama. It is damning. But you seem to think it settles the argument in Obama’s favor. This is a logic I can’t comprehend.

    Muslims will fight with us or against us in the ISIS war because of how it serves their interests, not based on what we call the enemy. But if we don’t understand the enemy we will have  a harder time defeating him. Though you keep saying it, the real issue isn’t what Obama calls the enemy, it’s what he thinks about the enemy. From everything he says and does, he seems to think the enemy is a bunch of disaffected youth who need job opportunities. He thinks that they will be discouraged by drone attacks even as they gain territory. He thinks that he knows their religious motivations better than they do. He thinks he has a better strategy (pinning notes to hostages and letting them go) then the one they have adopted (cruel executions). He probably still thinks they are the JV. He thinks that the Crusades deprives us of moral standing to criticize these head choppers.

    Meanwhile, DHS is releasing position papers on the threat of terrorism from right-wing militias. That’s like ICE spending most of its time on the wave of illegal immigration from Canada.

    But you seem to be more concerned about what Bush believed, as if that is the least bit relevant to what we should be doing now. I honestly don’t get that line of argument.

    • #95
  6. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    The “violent extremism” euphemism really sticks in my craw.  However, there is a term that I prefer to “Muslim/Islamic/Islamist” “fundamentalist/extremist/terrorist”.  It is “Islamic supremacist”.

    Just as “white supremacist” does not cast aspersions on all white people (only those who believe the dominance of their race should be established through intimidation and violence), so does “Islamic supremacist” make clear that aspersions are not being cast on a whole religion – only those who believe the dominance of Islam should be established through intimidation and violence.

    (Though it may be said that the basic tenets of the religion encourage such actions, in practice, the vast majority of Muslims do not engage in them and merely wish to practice their religion peacefully.)

    From a politically-correct standpoint, “white supremacist” is perfectly fine because whites are a “privileged” “oppressor” group.  Muslims, on the other hand, are seen as a victim group oppressed by the US, Israel, and their own governments.  Therefore, in PC World “Islamic supremacist” does not compute.  These people must be cast as generic “violent extremists” who are merely misguided youths in need of dialogue, education, and jobs.  Would such an approach work with white supremacists?  Perhaps with one out of a hundred.  Why should anyone assume such an approach would work with a meaningful number of Islamic supremacists?

    • #96
  7. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: This doesn’t offend me as an American; it offends me as a graphic designer. That is a rough-looking pile of clip art.

    Amen to that.

    In the wake of a 21-beheading salute from Jihadists, and after a week of criticism from both sides of the aisle that this administration finds it nearly impossible to name our enemies (while suggesting that they just need jobs), we get this crapola about “countering violent extremism” as if it’s just some kind of ghostly abstract concept that can be overcome by inviting them into our homes for coffee.

    “Begins in your community”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? “Partner,” “Engage,” “Support”? What kind of airy-fairy faculty-lounge crap is this?

    After the state department Harfed it last week, I’m starting to think they’re just trolling us now.

    • #97
  8. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    DrewInWisconsin:

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: This doesn’t offend me as an American; it offends me as a graphic designer. That is a rough-looking pile of clip art.

    Amen to that.

    In the wake of a 21-beheading salute from Jihadists, and after a week of criticism from both sides of the aisle that this administration finds it nearly impossible to name our enemies (while suggesting that they just need jobs), we get this crapola about “countering violent extremism” as if it’s just some kind of ghostly abstract concept that can be overcome by inviting them into our homes for coffee.

    “Begins in your community”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? “Partner,” “Engage,” “Support”? What kind of airy-fairy faculty-lounge crap is this?

    After the state department Harfed it last week, I’m starting to think they’re just trolling us now.

    Maybe you can tweet your ideas to them….be constructive Drew!  Don’t be a part of the hegemony.

    • #98
  9. Wiley Inactive
    Wiley
    @Wiley

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: But if the seven fonts and eight colors prove insufficient to scare away the jihadists, State also has a blog post outlining their strategy to defeat Islamist terror solve violent extremism.

    You are funny Jon.

    My daughter is about to start college in Graphic Design. I’m so proud that she can be on the front lines in the fight terrorism. Go girl and confuse them with multiple colors and tricky fonts.

    • #99
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.