President Obama: Idealism Adrift

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

The Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, Mali, Egypt, Cameroon (and the list goes on forever) have heightened criticism of President Barack Obama and pressed a demand that the United States take a leadership role in combating ISIL in Iraq and Syria. While I think that is necessary, I am absolutely opposed to the United States taking any combat role in either country under this president. Quite frankly, were I the leader of any other nation seeking to combat the Islamic terror network, I would resist strenuously any leadership role by the United States under this president.

The reason is quite simple. Mr. Obama will not fight to win a war. At best he will go through the motions of half measures in order to not be blamed for losing a war. In this regard he resembles former Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. Add to that Mr. Obama’s duplicity in providing assistance to those who will fight to win. He denied weapons and intelligence to the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army. He has withheld weapons, intelligence and supplies from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the Ukraine, and Israel. He basically destroyed Libya by ousting Muammar Gaddafi and denying any significant military and financial aid to the succeeding government.

In aid of the French in the aftermath of the brutal attacks in Paris, Mr. Obama agreed to “share intelligence.” What we have learned is that Mr. Obama gave the French information on targets that he himself has refused to allow the United States military to engage.

It was disclosed last week that President Barack Obama had imposed two major obstacles to inflicting any significant damage on the Islamic State (ISIL) – Da’ish now for the foreign service snobs in the State Department, including Secretary John Kerry. First, he refused to allow attacks on the tanker trucks that transport stolen oil from the fields now controlled by ISIL to the black market. According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that profits ISIL nearly $350 Million per year. The reason given by Mr. Obama’s apologists is that any such attacks may injure the truck drivers. But the public disclosure of this has forced Mr. Obama’s hand and so he authorized the dropping of leaflets warning the drivers and then he destroyed several of the tanker trucks. The question is whether Mr. Obama will continue such regular attacks on ISIL’s economic lifeline? Past history indicates that he did the first one’s for show and there will be precious few hereafter. If any further attacks are to be made it will be by the French and now the English who have agreed to join France in the efforts to destroy ISIL.

Second, Mr. Obama refused to allow attacks on ISIL headquarters in Ar-Raqqah, Syria. Mr. Obama justifies this by alleging that he fears injuring prisoners that might be held there. However, that type of hand wringing has not deterred the French or Russia in launching massive missile and air attacks on Ar Raqqah. A brief search on the internet does not reveal any such attacks on ISIL’s putative “capital” by the United States.

God know what other restrictions Mr. Obama has placed on our military forces in their attempt to combat this malevolent branch of Islam.

So what drives a man like Mr. Obama to sacrifice lives in a fight he refuses to win? There are some that claim Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim and that he will not challenge the rise of Islam, including the monsters who profess Sharia law in justification of rape, torture, and massive killing of innocents. I doubt that is true since Mr. Obama is by and large agnostic in practice of any religion. (And somehow I don’t see Michelle Obama, who has embraced a lavish lifestyle as First Lady, succumbing to donning the hijab and living a near cloistered life.)

There are others who claim that Mr. Obama secretly hates America and is intent on destroying its position as a superpower. That rationale is “based” on Mr. Obama’s feeling of repression as an African American in a white society. Nice try, but Mr. Obama is half white and more Arab than African. According to the left leaning Snopes:

“Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25%  African Negro from his father’s side.

“While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family  was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African  Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s  Arab, not African Negro).”

More importantly, Mr. Obama did not have much experience of “being Black in America” since he was raised by his white upper middleclass grandparents in Hawaii and attended private schools and prestigious colleges – all bastions of white guilt-ridden liberalism.

The most likely explanation is the Mr. Obama is simply a rigid adherent to the brand of effete liberalism that is prevalent in academia and government where the world is viewed as it should be (at least as they think it should be) and completely ignores the reality of everyday humankind. Such adherents tend to intellectualize all that confronts them. And their naivete is boundless. It permits them to find excuses for the beasts that confront them. It permits them to salve their conscience by providing others the tools they need to perform dangerous acts that they will not do – as if that detachment absolves them of involvement.

It allows people like Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to sniff disdainfully when Russia invades Crimea that such actions are just inappropriate in the 21st Century. It allows Mr. Obama to rationalize that if he is accommodating to the mullahs of Iran that they will end their support of international terrorism and the annihilation of Israel. It allows Mr. Obama to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood as champions of peace and transparency when they took over Egypt from Hosni Mubarak despite having been previously identified as a terrorist organization and then to criticize the Egyptian military when it rescued the nation from the repression that symbolized Mubarak’s successor, Mohammed Morsi.

It plays out in domestic policy where Mr. Obama is critical of success because it creates inequality. It drives his demand for income redistribution. He cannot differentiate between “equal opportunity” and “equal outcome.”

In doing all of this Mr. Obama ignores the reality that there are brutal people in this world hell bent on achieving domination. He fails to understand that because we are different our achievements will be different – some smarter, some not; some stronger, some not; some willing to work harder, some not. He fails to remember that it was not the dons of Harvard and Yale that won independence or preserved freedom – it was that common man with a gun that is responsible.

In a recent exchange on FOX News, noted columnist and granddam of American politics, Peggy Noonan, declared that Mr. Obama was irrelevant for purposes of international affairs. She noted that he is not trusted by our allies and not feared by our enemies. Seven years of duplicity has brought us to this.

For the first time in history the world is best served by eschewing American leadership. For the good of peace and security in this dangerous world, Mr. Obama should remain irrelevant as we wait out the last thirteen months of his presidency. Looking to Mr. Obama for leadership or support is a fool’s errand and the world will be better served by relying on leaders such as France’s Francois Hollande, England’s David Cameron, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein.

For us in America, we should pray that the next thirteen months pass quickly and without incident.


Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Foreign Relations, Individual Responsiblity, John Kerry, Leadership, Liberalism, President Obama | 13 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Obummer has foreign policy so messed up the Russians are playing in the Middle East oil patch. The Saudi’s abandoned by Obama now have incentive to seek a deal with Russia whereby the Saudi’s back off their oil production in return for Russia assuring Iran will not play so hard against the Saudi’s interests. Russia being heavily dependent on oil export revenues sees an opportunity to bolster revenues and aid its own economic recovery.

    So while we in the states currently enjoy low gasoline prices, Obummer’s failure as a commander in chief may soon take away this economic benefit. Too compound this serious error, Obummer runs policies to reduce North American oil production from what it could be very easily; all in the name of meeting the intangible, abstract notion of green house gases; highly popular in the thin air of academia from which Obummer oozes.

    • When I saw the draft which was of 7159 dollars, I accept that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his spare time with his computer. . His aunts neighbor has done this for only 10 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car .This is what they are donig …

      >>>>> Visit my ƤŘỖƑĮĹẸ for the site address


      • You’re Fired.

        Butt, you can’t or refuse to pay for an ad in the margin.

    • DavidAppell

      So Americans can terrorize the Middle Eastern “oil patch,” but the Russians can’t?

      And blaming Obama for a time when/if gas prices might rise? Cowardly. You have no right to cheap gas, Clark. Stop being greedy.

      Grow some morals, Clark.

      • Myke

        Funny, David. You chastise Clark for the same cheap energy with which you benefit. Cowardly in your lack of acknowledgment.

        • Dr. Drayage

          Thank you for your chastisement of David Appell, intern for what’s left of US.

    • DavidAppell

      Clark wrote: “…abstract notion of green house gases.”

      Now clark thinks some gases don’t absord infrared radiation.

      Stupidity, plain and simple. Go learn something for a change, clark, and stop embarassing yourself:

      “On the Absorption and radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction,” John Tyndall, Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22, 169-194, 273-285 (1861).

    • Bob Clark

      It strikes me as abstract, even beyond abstract, to base the theory on climate change models whose predictions of temperature are more than two standard deviations off actual temperature observation. In time tested mathematical techniques, such models would be said to be lacking proof of hypothesis.

      So, lacking the scientific method, the climate change believers turn to a much weaker test which says the measure of accuracy is not actual temperature observation but instead what other climate change models forecast. This is much akin to the period of human history where most authorities estimated the world as flat, and so, even those these estimates were all off when compared to actual observation; folks in this bygone era of some length were led to believe the world was flat.

      • Bob Clark

        I think most folks like $2 gasoline as opposed to $4 gasoline. Some folks like below don’t believe in the moral basis of protecting free and open markets; but allowing others to erect monopolies in their place such as Russia may be attempting at this very moment.

        It is rather sad to see people who base their decision making on where the proverbial puck is, and not where the puck seems headed unless intervened.

  • DavidAppell

    Larry wants war. But, of course, Larry won’t go fight in the wars he wants. Larry is far too comfortable exactly where he is right now.

    Larry, let’s hear your answers:

    1. How many US soldiers have died under Obama’s administration?
    2. And how many under Bush Jr’s?
    3. How many innocent people have died in Obama’s wars?
    4. How man innocent people died in the Lesser Bush’s wars?

    How many more deaths do you need, Larry? A number, please.

    • David from Mill City

      And it is not clear that such a war would have any lasting effect on the situation or reduce the likelihood of terrorist acts by IS supporters in the region or internationally. In fact the invasion of IS territory by European and/or American Ground forces increases rather then decreasing the likelihood of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States.

  • David from Mill City

    Yet another simplistic and error filled examination of an extremely complex multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-religious situation offered as justification for a condemnation of President Obama’s foreign policy. To start, there is no single “Islamic terror network “ but rather multiple networks, local, regional and international, affiliated to a greater or lessor degree to organizations, which currently or in the past have utilized the tactic of terrorism to advance their goals. This multiplicity of nations, organizations, and groups utilizing terrorism reflects the very complex structure of North Africa and the Greater Middle East.

    The current villain of the day, the Islamic State, (AKA IS, The Islamic
    State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL], the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS], the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham, Daesh, or Da’ish), was an anti-Syrian faction that took advantage of the power vacuum created by the Syrian Civil War to establish itself in eastern Syria and then into northern Iraq. Strictly speaking it is not a terrorist organization. Yes, it is an organization, that among other things, actively utilizes the tactic of terrorism regionally and internationally. But a more accurate classification would be as a quasi- or proto- nation state. For in addition to its terrorist arm, it has a conventional military arm and provides governmental and social services within the area it controls. These services include, among others, a school system, operating a court and criminal justice system based on a accepted and codified legal system, operating the water, electric and sewer systems, providing free medical care and insuring that the garbage is picked up. And in many cases, the level and quality of these services is better then those that had been provided by the Syrian or Iraqi governments. Ethnically Arab, it is a active adherent and proponent of Wahhabism a Sunni sect. The population in the area it currently controls is predominantly Sunni-Arab, and while many may not be Wahhabists, they prefer their rule to that of the Shi’a based Syrian and Iraqi governments. So within its “borders” it has a level of support from the Sunni population that varies from active to acceptance.

    Given this level of local support, eliminating the Islamic State is not
    simply a matter of capturing or killing IS leadership and liberating
    the area from their control. After ground conquest the area would
    need to be occupied until a locally (i. e. Sunni) and internationally
    acceptable local government could be formed. Should the occupation be terminated prior to the formation of such a government IS would
    likely reemerge. At the present time there is no Sunni Arab ground
    force available to conquer and occupy the area. While Shi’a or
    American and European forces could conquer the area, their use would push the IS underground and make a multi-decade occupation and the establishment of an acceptable state difficult to impossible. A
    further complication is that the area in question is located within
    the borders of Syria and Iraq, both Shi’a dominated, neither of which
    is likely to agree to loose territory so a Sunni dominated state could be formed. Simply put, given that the total eradication of all Sunni-Arabs in the area is unacceptable, there no good solution
    available nor is there an acceptable bad solution either.

    It appears that President Obama is fully aware of this situation as well as the reality that bombing non-military targets and killing
    civilians in the Sunni Arab areas controlled by the Islamic State
    strengthens their hold on region and makes the recruiting of fighters
    and supporters internationally easier. This awareness explains his
    current strategy of containment, while trying to develop a Sunni-Arab
    military force to take and control the region, while at the same time
    encouraging the development of an Islamic based counter to the
    Islamic States international recruiting. While this is clearly not a
    particularly good strategy, it is the least bad one available at this
    time. Given the Paris attacks the time needed for the current
    strategy to have lasting results is no longer available.

    • Eric Blair

      Shush, you’re making heads explode.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)