Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring Obama’s failed terrorism approach

SPECIAL NOTE:  The Jidhadist attacks on Paris, which came just as this article was being prepared, have caused over 100 deaths, according to preliminary reports. On-site observations from the Middle East  indicate that there was “jubilation” in certain quarters upon  receiving news of the devastating loss of life.  

For far too long, many have alleged that withdrawing from Iraq, as President Obama did early in his term, would reduce tensions with the Islamic World.  Similarly, it was maintained that starting to wind down activities in Afghanistan would do the same, ditto for reducing our relations with Israel.  Obviously, that policy has been repeatedly proven wrong. 

Islamic extremists do not hate the United States for what it DOES; they hate America for what is IS.  The concepts of personal freedom, religious tolerance, and equal rights for women are unacceptable to their dark age mentality. 

 

The aberrant foreign policy developed by the President and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entails the two most devastating mistakes in U.S. international relations: the so-called “Reset” with Russia and the refusal to acknowledge the growing threat of Islamic extremism.

Clear examples of a policy based on self-delusion abound.  In a state of the Union address, Mr. Obama stated that “The shadow of the threat of terrorism has passed.” In an interview with VOX, he claimed that the level of alarm over terrorism is excessive. He described a shooting at a U.S. military base by an Islamic extremist as “workplace violence.”

Both the White House and Secretary Clinton knowingly deceived the public about the cause of the attack on Benghazi, claiming that it was the result of a video—knowing all the time that this was untrue. The failure to hold either to account for that lie, and to refuse to probe into the circumstances that led to the attack in the first place, constitutes a searing indictment of the partisanship of the American media.

These problems range from neck and purchase cialis here back pain that actually works too – non-surgical spinal decompression. This is used to maintain or achieve full erection when you need. viagra price canada is a prescription pill but still it enjoys credibility of the US citizens are uninsured and when it comes to spending on medicines it becomes a bite in to their pockets. It is something which haunts them throughout their entire sex life if it is not treated. buy generic levitra If you are taking the medicines for chest pain or the medicines for the prostrate problems, it is being advised not to take the pill three purchase generic viagra or four times before it works for a majority of the people who try it — about half stem further loss of hair, while the other half received a placebo once a day for 3 to 4 months offers the. The rise of ISIS and the growing strength of extremists can be directly attributed to the President’s stunningly misguided actions. Whether or not one supported the war to eliminate Saddam Hussein, the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise to power. His announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan caused the Taliban to regain tremendous influence, as did the President’s warped decision to negotiate with them.  Apparently, the Taliban’s brutal treatment of Afghanistan’s population, its relentless assaults on women, and its participation in the 9/11 attack on America didn’t disqualify them from being a negotiating partner of the Obama Administration. Wiser heads have now at least prevailed upon the White House to keep some U.S. forces in Afghanistan longer, in an effort to not repeat his horrible mistake in Iraq.

The President’s supporters both in politics and in the media apparently have concluded that there are only two options:  a return to massive boots on the ground or essentially ignoring, and sometimes even supporting, the depravity and threat of Islamic extremists.

Indeed, Mr. Obama’s endorsement of the Arab Spring movements, which were thinly veiled guises for extremists to topple existing Middle East regimes, was a tilt towards the worst elements in the Moslem world. It is appropriate to ask why the President endorsed the replacement of Egypt’s pro-western, pro-peace regime with one that was exactly the opposite.  Why did he oppose the “Green Revolution” in Iran, the only Arab Spring movement not to gain his favor, that sought to replace the anti-west, anti-peace hard line regime with one that was more reasonable? And above all, why did he actively involve the U.S.—despite his allergy to military involvement—in the deposing of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, which was fighting al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, and which led to the rise of influence by those forces in that nation?

The President’s action—or inaction—regarding ISIS is telling. He has authorized just enough airstrikes to allow the evening news some film of U.S. planes doing something, but not enough to in any way hinder ISIS activities.  It’s all about internal U.S. politics, and not about actually confronting terrorism. Similarly, the Administration’s recent placement of 50, yes, 50, special forces personnel on the ground is just another exercise in public relations.

Mr. Obama’s bizarre Guantanamo Bay policy is illustrative. Why has he released a number of inmates, some of whom have returned to their terrorist activities? Why, despite the success of Guantanamo Bay as a prison facility far from U.S. soil where attacks could jeopardize American civilians, has he made the closing of that facility such a priority that he threatened to veto the entire 2016 defense budget unless Congress went along with his plans?

One of the terrible results of the President’s Mideast policies has been the dramatic growth of Iranian and Russian influence and outright power in the region. If U.S. forces had not been prematurely withdrawn from Iraq, this would not have occurred. Even after that mistake was made and ISIS did rise as a result, an earlier and far more extensive use of U.S. airpower along with a limited and judicious use of ground forces against ISIS could have prevented the current disaster from occurring.

Presidents make mistakes, sometimes with the best of intentions.  But once it is clear that a mistake has been made, a correction must be made.  Despite the utter failure of his foreign policies, Mr. Obama stubbornly refuses to change course, and his supporters continue to make excuses for him. He has not been held accountable by a clearly biased media desperate to gloss over his terrible failings. Placing partisanship over the good of the nation, and in the case of Islamic extremism, the good of all humanity, is a poor choice.