It’s not public yet, but the Pentagon has just delivered to the President and his national security team the beginnings of a comprehensive new strategy to defeat the Islamic State and other Mideast terrorist organizations.
The president requested the first draft of such a plan within 30 days of his inauguration.
While most of the plan will remain classified, I’m eager to learn as much as possible about how Mattis and his generals plan to press the offensive.
However, what’s critical is not just the Pentagon’s kinetic war plan. What we also need is a new plan from the State Department and National Security Council on how to conduct far more effective strategic communications in this war.
What’s the best way for Washington to define our enemy?
Is “Radical Islam” an effective or offensive short-hand descriptor?
Is “Radical Islamism” a somewhat more precise and thus better term?
Why is using the term “countering violent extremism” a flawed phrase?
How can the new administration do a better job than the previous administration in educating the American people as to the important nuances of this fight?
How can we work more closely with our Sunni Arab allies such as Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and the Gulf states?
How can we mobilize the vast majority of the Muslim world that does not support terrorism in our efforts to defeat the radicals?
I’ll address such critical issues soon as I launch the book tour for my new thriller. Without Warningis about an administration that is blindsided by a series of catastrophic terror attacks by ISIS inside the American homeland, even using chemical weapons. Let’s pray that never happens.
For now, let me just say that I’ve been quite encouraged by the national security team that President Trump has put into place. I’m especially encouraged by the new National Security Advisor who is giving serious thought to the best way to communicate the fight.