Election 2016 is less than two weeks away. ISIS/DAESH is still around. The Taliban are still active. Syria continues to be wrecked with violence. Refugees keep streaming into the West. Our hyper-vigilance to stop Muslim-led terrorism is still in full swing. How is normalcy to return without Muslims gaining normalcy at the same time?

In solving the problems presented by “Muslims”, we do not see us as having been players in the twisted relationship. Have we ever taken any responsibility in what we face with the Muslims? Yet one-handed clap or snapping with just a thumb is impossible. Try! Blaming Muslims while professing not to do so officially is strategically simple and operationally convenient, while being an easy domestic sell. So, should it be a surprise that we wring our hands about the Muslims? No “solution” appears to hold. The diagnosis is shoddy and the prognosis atrocious no matter our tools. Since we cannot be faulted, the only possible reason for errant Muslim behavior must be in their DNA. The consequent policy has two tracks: change their DNA – disabuse them of their faith and heritage, eliminate those with such DNA, or both. This is stuff of hubris and demagoguery, and a formula for a perpetual warfare over a vast expanse of land against 20 percent of world’s population. It promises to be incredibly expensive and the proof is in. After all, it is a New Age World War supported by the writing of one Samuel P. Huntington in Clash of Civilizations. The political science of DNA baiting is inevitably and unequivocally racist and ethnocentric. A lack of honesty and sincerity demeans the good part of our heritage and sets the clock back. We appear never to really learn. Once more we are making “mistakes” and hurting others, once more needing to say sorry (we love to be on the perpetual sorry train) and finding ourselves in denial and tongue tied. Time to time we tinker at the edges of our policy expecting the whole tapestry will change. We elected Mr. Obama on the hope that he will bring a sea change, but he did not. Perhaps he was constrained from following through on his sparkling rhetoric about globalism.

To not hold ourselves accountable serves those who have a domineering worldview and who are thereby able to questionably deploy our military upon Muslims at every corner of the earth. This comes with rampant manipulation at multiple levels. Once the defeat in Vietnam became clear, for US “experts”, the take away was not that the war was inherently wrong but two other things: our people oppose losses suffered by Americans (they dropped unnecessary) and only if they find out (curtailment of the 1st Amendment became a matter due). So, we got into massive research for remote munitions and “precision” bombs (including today’s drones) whereby less and less manpower would be deployed and fewer and fewer eyes and ears would bear witness. This paired with “Embedded Journalists” seeing and hearing only that which should be seen, heard and reported completed US strategic deployment. Journalist became beholden to colonels and generals by this miracle of “openness” in American Government. The vanguards of public voice relegated their professional duty, curtailing doubts, suspicions and a need to investigate. This also became possible because of rampant deregulation in multiple sectors in the US, including the corporatization of US journalism. Even unsuspecting political leaders, including Mr. Obama, have been sucked into this politically facile, anaerobic, futuristic warfare that is keeping its payback option open. So, in two ways this form of warfare disallows a war to end: Lack of exhaustion on the part of the aggressor and the potential for a delayed, unconventional retribution. Whatever the pundits of modern technological warfare may say, not suffering is not a good way to conduct warfare, especially against those lacking in self-defense and counter-punch. It’s morally depraved, dehumanizing, and imperialistic. The domestic forces conducting war become insulated from questioning and revision.

So, will the President-elect forge a more wholesome, realistic relationship with the Muslim polity at home and abroad?