Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category
Thanks to Israel’s insistence on doing the right thing for their people, Israel’s security cabinet told the IDF, aka the Israeli Defense Forces, to keep hitting Hamas hard:
Amid mounting diplomatic pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire, the security cabinet on Wednesday instructed the IDF to continue to “forcefully hit Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in Gaza,” and to conclude its mission to destroy the tunnels leading from the Strip into Israel, diplomatic sources said.
The army’s actions in locating and destroying these terror tunnels have brought about significant strategic achievements in an area in which Hamas has invested much effort over the years, the sources said.
Israel should ignore world opinion when it comes to decimating Hamas. Hamas is committed to eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. They’ve frequently used students as human shields to protect their missiles, which are then used to kill Israeli citizens, including children. (The world apparently doesn’t experience outrage when Israeli children are killed. That’s apparently used only when children in Gaza are killed.)
I’m totally in favor of Israel destroying Hamas’s missiles, then demolishing their tunnels. I’m totally in favor of Israel doing these things to protect their people.
What’s particularly disgusting is the fact that ‘the world’ reflexively criticizes Israel when a child is killed or injured in Gaza but there’s silence when Israeli citizens are brutally and intentionally killed by Hamas. Why doesn’t the UN blame Hamas for the violence? Is it because the UN, especially UNRWA, is exceptionally corrupt? Is it because the UN isn’t really about resolving disputes but in affixing blame against the US and/or Israel?
The US is pressing Israel to halt the fighting. On Sunday, in a phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Barack Obama urged an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. The UN Security Council also urged a ceasefire. On Wednesday, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warned: “Israelis have to understand that, while they are defending their security in seeking to root out these rocket launchers and deal with the attack tunnels, they are also undermining the support for Israel that exists in the West.” Netanyahu on Monday told Israelis to be braced for what he called a prolonged operation.
Mr. Hammond’s statement is talking in circles. While he’s saying that Israel sshould “root out these rocket launchers”, he’s also saying that Israel is “undermining” international “support for Israel.” Why shouldn’t Israel gain support for defending themselves? That’s what they’re doing. Why shouldn’t Hamas lose support for using children as human shields? Why shouldn’t the interational community condemn Hamas for trying to destroy and terrorize Israel?
Israel is used to international criticism. Personally, I’d modify the old cliche that there’s only 2 things that are guaranteed: death and taxes. I’d modify that to 3 things: death, taxes and the international community condemning Israel for defend itself.
Then-Sen. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton both railed against President Bush’s confrontation of terrorists where they lived. They both preached the gospel of “smart diplomacy.” Six years later, we now know that “smart diplomacy” is just a euphemism for appeasement and retreat, if not outright isolationim.
Nowhere is the failure of the Obama-Clinton “smart diplomacy” foreign policy more apparent than in Libya. Walter Russell Mead’s article highlights that failure succinctly by quoting a State Department travel advisory:
The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. The Libyan government has not been able to adequately build its military and police forces and improve security following the 2011 revolution. Many military-grade weapons remain in the hands of private individuals, including antiaircraft weapons that may be used against civilian aviation. Crime levels remain high in many parts of the country. In addition to the threat of crime, various groups have called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya. Extremist groups in Libya have made several specific threats this year against U.S. government officials, citizens, and interests in Libya. Because of the presumption that foreigners, especially U.S. citizens, in Libya may be associated with the U.S. government or U.S. NGOs, travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death. U.S. citizens currently in Libya should exercise extreme caution and depart immediately.
Sporadic episodes of civil unrest have occurred throughout the country and attacks by armed groups can occur in many different areas; hotels frequented by westerners have been caught in the crossfire. Armed clashes have occurred in the areas near Tripoli International Airport, Airport Road, and Swani Road. Checkpoints controlled by militias are common outside of Tripoli, and at times inside the capital. Closures or threats of closures of international airports occur regularly, whether for maintenance, labor, or security-related incidents. Along with airports, seaports and roads can close with little or no warning. U.S. citizens should closely monitor news and check with airlines to try to travel out of Libya as quickly and safely as possible.
The status of the country’s interim government remains uncertain. The newly elected Council of Representatives is scheduled to convene by August 4, but political jockeying continues over where and when to seat the parliament. Heavy clashes between rival factions erupted in May 2014 in Benghazi and other eastern cities. In Tripoli, armed groups have contested territory near Tripoli International Airport since July 13, rendering the airport non-operational. State security institutions lack basic capabilities to prevent conflict, and there remains a possibility of further escalation.
TRANSLATION: Libya is a disaster. Contrary to President Obama’s statement that al-Qa’ida is on the run, terrorist organizations, aka militias, control Libya. In September, 2012, Benghazi was a hot spot. These days, the entire country is a hot spot.
“Smart diplomacy” has become a punch line, and the dream Team Obama had of making Democrats the go-to national security party is as dead as the passenger pigeon.
President Obama is in way over his head. He’s never been interested in learning about the different actors on the world stage. That can’t be said about Hillary. She’s been interested in the different actors on the world stage. She just hasn’t been that bright. She could’ve stood up to President Obama but she didn’t. She acquiesced in the name of political considerations.
Libya isn’t a fight that needed to be fought, though it definitely needed monitoring. Killing militias would’ve been much more advisable than killing Khadaffi.
President Obama’s favorite foreign policy straw man is that there are only 2 options: all out war or isolationism. That’s either proof that he’s a liar or that he doesn’t have a clue. It might be proof of both.
Taking out Khadaffi was stupid. Not confronting Putin is equally foolish. Smart diplomacy isn’t as smart as arming people who would love to fight for their own freedom. Why President Obama prefers giving Putin free run of eastern Europe but insists on killing north African dictators is beyond me.
If I hear another pundit talk about the bad optics hurting President Obama while Israel kills terrorists and people are murdered by Russian-trained military terrorists or while south-of-the-border cartels ignore the Tex-Mex border, I’ll scream.
This isn’t about the optics of going on one fundraising junket after another. This isn’t about whether President Obama can stay in touch with his national security team.
President Obama is justifiably getting hammered because he appears to be indifferent to solving the nation’s biggest crises. When Jennifer Palmieri says that President Obama didn’t want to change his schedule because he didn’t want to give “the American people…a false sense of crisis”, she’s reading from President Obama’s delusional script. I’m not worried about false crises. I’m worried about the real crises that President Obama is ignoring.
This wouldn’t be a topic of conversation if Americans got the sense that President Obama a) took his job seriously or b) knew how to handle these foreign policy crises. Clearly, he’s in over his head. Clearly, he thinks that the world is better off without the United State throwing its weight around.
It’s one thing for the White House press secretary talks about the tranquil world we’re living in. It’s another when our Secretary of State parrots that notion.
News flash to the White House: there are bad people out there committing acts of war. There are people who are flooding the United States with tons of illegal immigrants. There are militaries that are trying to gobble up other countries.
Meanwhile, President Obama meanders from hamburger shop to burger joint, from coffee shop to coffee shop while chatting with “ordinary folks.” What’s needed is a leader who understands that the world needs the United State to bring moral clarity to these crises. The world is a terrible, frightening neighborhood when appeasers like President Obama pull the United States from the world stage.
That doesn’t mean US boots on the ground. It means, in this instance, that the US arms and trains Ukrainians so that they can push back against Putin’s Russia. If the US doesn’t do that, then we should prepare for more situations where Putin’s Russia keeps expanding their campaign of militarism.
This article perfectly summarizes the Russian-backed terrorists shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. First, here’s Putin’s propaganda:
In a tweet soon after the plane went down, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “Condolences to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak in connection with the crash of a passenger aircraft in Ukraine.”
A Kremlin statement said Putin opened a meeting with his economic advisers by calling for a moment of silence over the crash.
“This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine,” he said. “And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.”
Next, here’s Ukraine’s dismissal of Putin’s fabrications:
A statement from the Foreign Ministry in Kiev claimed the plane had been “shot down.”
“According to the General Staff of Ukrainian Armed Forces, the airplane was shot down by the Russian Buk missile system as the liner was flying at an altitude of 10,000 meters [33,000 feet],” the statement added. “Ukraine has no long-range air defense missile systems in this area. The plane was shot down, because the Russian air defense systems was affording protection to Russian mercenaries and terrorists in this area. Ukraine will present the evidence of Russian military involvement into the Boeing crash.”
There’s the crux of this situation. We’re forced into a binary choice. We either believe a former KGB agent who’s a trained liar or we believe the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.
The trained KGB liar offered his condolences to the families his terrorists shot down. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry promised that they’ll offer proof that Putin’s terrorists shot this plane down.
It shouldn’t take long to decide who’s telling the truth. Hint: it isn’t the lying former KGB agent.
Meanwhile, President Obama spoke on this crisis for 40 seconds before returning to his planned speech.
Whether he realizes it or not, Sen. Rand Paul sounds frighteningly like President Obama. Sen. Paul’s op-ed sounds exceptionally dovish, starting with this:
President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same option if it makes sense.
Notice the qualifier-filled statements from President Obama and Sen. Paul. It’d be surprising if President Obama did anything more than token air strikes. With Sen. Paul, we just don’t know, though his record is fairly isolationist and dovish. That isn’t the worst part, though. Sen. Paul’s intellectual dishonesty is frightening:
Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.
Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS?
Why would Sen. Paul ask that question? First, he notes that Gov. Perry made that statement in 2012, when the situation in Iraq was dramatically different. Why does Sen. Paul automatically assume that Gov. Perry’s policy would be the same today as it was in 2012? As intellectually dishonest as Sen. Paul’s assumption is, that isn’t the part that frightens me most. This question is:
How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country, a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves?
First, it assumes that Gov. Perry would send in troops, which isn’t a safe assumption. Second, it’s the wrong question. Why doesn’t Sen. Paul understand that troops deployed to Iraq wouldn’t be there to “die for a foreign country”? Why doesn’t he understand that they’d only be deployed to obliterate a terrorist training ground in the heart of Iraq?
Isn’t Sen. Paul bright enough to understand that a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East is a huge threat to the United States, not just to our allies?
This statement is frighteningly fictional:
Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.
Sen. Paul, it’s time you talked with people in the Reagan national security team. They’d tell you that he didn’t miss an opportunity to talk with dissidents jailed in the Soviet Union’s gulags. They’d tell you that he beefed up Radio Free Europe to tell dissidents that he was fighting for them. They’d tell you that diplomacy didn’t work until Reagan made it clear that he’d counter anything the Soviets would attempt to do.
The negotiations didn’t start until Reagan had frightened the bejesus out of President Gorbachev. Once he’d shown President Gorbachev who was the real superpower, then the negotiations started.
Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.
If Sen. Paul meant that Jimmy Carter left President Reagan with a crappy hand, that’s right. If Sen. Paul means that there was any doubt in President Reagan’s mind that his plan would work and work fairly quickly, the answer to that question is an emphatic no. Reagan knew that the Soviet Union’s economy was on the verge of collapse. He knew that putting pressure on the Soviets would put them on the defensive.
Apparently, Sen. Paul doesn’t really understand the genius of President Reagan’s foreign policy genius. There’s no question whether Reagan was a hawk. It’s just that his foreign policy strategy was multi-faceted.
Sen. Paul’s op-ed is based on supposition, not fact. It’s based on something Gov. Perry said in 2012, not this summer. It’s apparent that Sen. Paul is as accomplished as President Obama in using strawman arguments. I expect that from this president. From now on, I guess I should expect it from Sen. Paul, too.
It’s sounding more and more like Gov. Rick Perry, (R-TX), is planning on running for president again in 2016. This op-ed sounds like the first shot against Sen. Paul:
This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.
The thing Sen. Paul’s supporters haven’t paid attention to is the fact that President Reagan was a confrontationalist. Though he didn’t fire a shot at the Soviet Union, he constantly confronted them strategically. He put in Pershing II missiles into western Europe. Doves like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry howled at the move, saying that this would just provoke the Soviets to become more expansionist.
Gov. Perry understands what President Reagan understood then. Gov. Perry understands that a vibrant, growing economy, coupled with the right strategic vigilance and interventionism, will thwart Putin’s expansionism and ISIS’ attempt to build a caliphate where terrorists can train for their next terrorist attack.
Here’s another shot frm Gov. Perry across Sen. Paul’s bow:
Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.
At the time, though, there were those who said that Reagan’s policies would push the Soviets to war. These voices instead promoted accommodation and timidity in the face of Soviet advancement as the surest path to peace. This, sadly, is the same policy of inaction that Paul advocates today.
It isn’t that Gov. Perry is pushing war. It’s that he isn’t pushing for America to stick its head in the sand. Like I said earlier, Reagan brought the Soviet empire to its knees without firing a shot.
The Soviet Union had a terrible economy. Today, Russia’s economy isn’t much better. Putin is flexing his country’s muscles because he thinks he can get away with it. That’ll end the minute the US economy starts hitting on all cylinders and the right president starts inserting itself in the world.
Again, this doesn’t require going to war, though it’ll require beefed up intel operations in the world’s nastiest corners. That won’t matter to Paul’s most paranoid supporters. Paul’s most paranoid supporters will still hear the drumbeats of war.
Sane people, however, will hear things clearly. Far more people will agree with Gov. Perry than will agree with Sen. Paul. Let the jockeying begin.
President Obama is getting eaten alive by an avalanche of crises simultaneously. I’ve never seen a president getting eaten alive by this many crises. Richard Nixon had Watergate. Reagan had Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton had Monicagate. George Bush had Katrina.
President Obama’s crises are crises of his own creation. The IRS scandal happened because he used the IRS as a weapon against his political adversaries. The border crisis happened because he told the world that he wouldn’t enforce the borders. The Iraq/ISIS crisis happened because he told the terrorists that he was giving them the heart of the Middle East. Benghazi happened becausse he campaigned on the foolishness that al-Qa’ida was dead or dying, therefore, they didn’t need to beef up security at the Benghazi compound. The VA crisis happened because he ignored the administrative corruption and the cooking of the books.
It’s getting to the point that the American people, including some DC reporters, have noticed that President Obama isn’t into governing or solving problems. When President Obama meets with Gov. Perry this week, it won’t be good enough to show he cares. (That’s a phrase Rep. Cuellar, D-TX, kept using in his interview with Megyn Kelly tonight.) President Obama needs to reach a solution by working with Republicans. If he doesn’t solve that crisis, he’ll be exposed as just another cheap politician who isn’t interested in solving problems.
Further, if he continues to get slapped by the courts for his extremist unconstitutional agenda, he’ll be seen as the biggest scofflaw in presidential history. If the Justice Department doesn’t start prosecuting criminals like Lois Lerner, President Obama and Eric Holder will become known as the most lawless president/AG duo since Nixon and Mitchell. I didn’t think that that was possible.
President Obama’s crises are policy-driven crises. He’s made one policy mistake after another. Those policy mistakes have caused crisis after crisis. They’re proof that President Obama is the worst president in US history. This isn’t about the color of President Obama’s skin. It’s about his ideology.
The border crisis is turning the American people off to immigration reform. While they like the thought of immigration reform in the abstract, they’re against the lawlessness that’s led to this crisis. The American people won’t sign onto a policy reform until they’re the administration is serious about enforcing the new laws.
At this point, people from across the political spectrum don’t believe President Obama will enforce law. What’s worse is that they’ve seen that Democrats in Congress and the Senate will protect him even when he’s been exposed. The IRS scandal and Benghazi are proof of that.
When George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Obama, President Obama’s arrogance was on full display:
BARACK OBAMA: You notice that he didn’t specifically say what exactly he was objecting to. I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something while they’re doing nothing.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if you get sued?
OBAMA: You know…the suit is a stunt. What I’ve told Speaker Boehner directly is: if you’re really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don’t you try getting something done through Congress? The majority of the American people want to see immigration reform done. We had a bipartisan bill through the Senate, and you’re going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority, while you are not doing anything.
First, President Obama got slapped around yesterday in the NLRB vs. Noel Canning decision. That’s because he insisted that the executive branch had the authority to tell the legislative branch when the legislative branch was in session. (Apparently, he didn’t pay attention to the constitutional concept of co-equal branches of government.)
Second, getting things done is a two-way street. There are literally dozens of bills waiting for a Senate vote that’ve been passed by the House of Representatives. President Obama and Sen. Reid are pretending they don’t exist because they don’t want to admit that Republicans have constructive, substantive solutions to America’s problems.
In their minds, they think they’re the only people with solutions. In President Obama’s mind, his ideas are the only legitimate ideas worthy of consideration. In President Obama’s mind, anything that Republicans propose isn’t worthy of consideration.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the federal government is based on checks and balances. That’s what the Constitution mandates. President Obama thinks the presidency is really a kingdom, a place where he has the authority to unilaterally rewrite laws that he’s signed. Yesterday, the Supreme Court slapped him down again. Their ruling in the NLRB v. Noel Canning case marked the thirteenth straight time that the Supreme Court told him he’d overstepped his authority.
If President Obama were to speak honestly in his response to Stephanopoulos, here’s what he would’ve said:
BARACK OBAMA: I’m not going to apologize for acting like an autocrat. It isn’t my fault that the Founding Fathers didn’t choose a monarchy. It’s time it became a monarchy.
President Obama is a despicable person who doesn’t care about laws he’s signed or the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold.
The end of his term can’t come soon enough. Ditto with the repeal of his policies. President Obama’s lawlessness can’t come soon enough.
Technorati: President Obama, George Stephanopoulos, Recess Appointments, NLRB v. Noel Canning, Supreme Court Ruling, Affordable Care Act, Imperial Presidency, Failed Policies, Iraq Crisis, National Security, Islamic Caliphate, Democrats
Much as Jane Harman tried defending President Obama’s decision to leave Iraq essentially defenseless, the truth is that losing the Iraq War is President Obama’s fault. Appearing on Fox News Sunday’s All Star Panel, Harman tried telling the panel that it’s Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki’s fault:
WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, as we discussed with Mike Rogers, this is our worst nightmare. We’re not talking about a terrorist group, organization. We’re talking about a terrorist army and possible state. How big a threat is ISIS? How much does it go to the Middle East and potentially to the U.S. homeland? And I have to ask, how did President Obama let it get to this point?
JANE HARMAN, D-CALIF., FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN: This started a long time with a guy named Zarqawi in Iraq, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq.
WALLACE: Who we killed.
HARMAN: Who we killed, and we thought that we had quieted down that particular group. A guy named Jobi York (ph) is now a scholar at the Wilson Center and is writing about this on the front page of “The Washington Post”. We thought we killed them but they’re back.
I wouldn’t lay this at Obama’s feet. Remember that the Iraqis refused to agree to a status of forces agreement to keep us in Iraq. And it’s one of the reasons –
WALLACE: There are arguments about how hard President Obama pushed.
HARMAN: Well, OK, mistakes were made and supporting Maliki, who is a feckless leader, Tom Friedman called him a jerk today, that’s a little harsh. But hey, and unable to control his country is a bad thing.
Had President Obama gotten serious about negotiating a status of forces agreement, we would’ve had a military in Iraq to stabilize Iraq. Had the US kept 15,000-20,000 troops in Iraq, ISIS wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity to establish this caliphate. It isn’t that the US military would’ve continued military operations.
The mere presence would’ve been a major deterrent against the militaristic operations of an ISIS.
As is often the case, George Will summarized things beautifully:
GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, one does wonder, we can hear from Jane on this, what we’re getting if we’re getting the value from the $50 billion we spend on our intelligence service, but General Douglas MacArthur said every military disaster can be explained by two words, too late.
It certainly is too late to think we’re going to condition aid on vast political reforms in Iraq, which are going to mollify these factions that have been at each other’s throats for centuries.
And Julie says, you put heavy weapons in there, when they got the Mosul, the ISIS people, they didn’t just empty the jails and the banks, they emptied the arsenals. Seventy-two tanks they came away with, 700 Humvees, thousands of tons of ammunition that will now be fired at the government of Iraq.
And just to get a sense of the humanitarian disaster that’s engulfing the region, there are today more Syrian children of school age in Lebanon than there are Lebanese children of school age, as the Syrian population scatters to neighboring countries.
President Obama was opposed to keeping a residual force in Iraq. It was always his political goal to campaign on ending the war in Iraq. It isn’t that he wanted Iraq to fail. It’s that that consideration wasn’t important to him. Ending the war in Iraq was everything to his political base going into 2012.
Predicating an administration’s national security policy on purely political considerations is a recipe for disaster. Predictably, that’s what we got.
Brit Hume added these observations:
So, the situation in Iraq that the president described in the sound bite that you played before we started here is now gone, forfeited, in my view, by this administration, and by Iraqi President Maliki, who is, you know, a very ineffective and I think weak leader who has made a multitude of mistakes. However, there’s been no sign that this president has been deeply engaged with him, trying to prevent him from doing so, and I think that the leverage that we would have had, had we been able to keep a residual force there, would have helped him do that, if he’d been interested. He seems not to have been.
Maliki was always an ineffective leader. Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Iraq during the Bush administration, was Maliki’s babysitter. His job, essentially, was to prevent Maliki from doing the things Iran wanted him to do.
The Obama administration pulled the military out of Iraq, then ignored the political situation in Iraq. President Obama didn’t pay attention to Iraq. That’s why they didn’t see ISIS coming until it was too late. Within 5 years, they will have plotted a new wave of terrorist attacks against the US, western Europe and Israel.
That isn’t a bold prediction. It’s trusting these terrorists at their word. They said that’s their goal. There’s no reason not to believe them because they’ve consistently followed through on their threats.
President Obama forfeited the war that President Bush had won. Now he owns that disaster.
President Obama is rightfully getting blamed for losing the war in Iraq. Last Tuesday, he confidently said “The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been.” On Thursday, he was forced to address Iraq’s military crisis, saying “I don’t rule out anything, because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold.” Hours later, he predictably ruled out boots on the ground.
For all of his mistakes, President Bush still managed to win the war in Iraq. Immediately upon winning election in 2008, President-elect Obama started working on getting out of Iraq. I don’t think he wanted to lose the war. That’s just what happened.
With ISIS now controlling one-third of Iraq and with the military hardware they captured, Iraq is lost, thanks mostly to President Obama, with an assist from Nouri al-Maliki.
It’s just a matter of time until ISIS controls enough of Iraq to establish the biggest terrorist training base in the history of the Middle East. It’s fast approaching that status now.
Unfortunately, that’s just part of the story.
President Obama said that the war in Afghanistan is winding down. He said that just before releasing the Taliban 5. It’s likely that the Taliban and “core al-Qa’ida” didn’t get the President’s memo. It’s just a matter of time before Mullah Obama and Ayman al-Zawahiri control Afghanistan.
Had President Obama been serious about establishing residual military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS wouldn’t have gotten the stronghold on central Iraq that it’s got now. Mullah Omar and Ayman al-Zawahiri wouldn’t literally be counting the days until they retook control of Afghanistan.
When campaigning in 2008, then-Candidate Obama repeatedly spoke about how he’d do things differently than President Bush. He talked about how America would be liked again. I took that to mean that state sponsors of terrorism and major terrorist organizations wouldn’t fear the United States. Further, I took that to mean President Putin would see the U.S. as a paper tiger, which would give Putin the expansionist opportunities he’d prayed for.
President Obama is on the cusp of history. No other U.S. president has lost 2 wars. President Obama is about to change that. Billions of dollars were spent. Thousands of lives were lost. Victory was within our grasp in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then President Obama threw both victories away because domestic politics dictated it and because it just wasn’t a priority with President Obama.
Jimmy Carter used to be the worst national security president in my lifetime. President Obama is set to eclipse that mark by leaps and bounds.
Technorati: Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, Appeasement, Democrats,
Afghanistan, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Islamic Caliphate, Nouri al-Maliki, President Bush, Troop Surge