Obama’s Middle East Failures Look Like a Plan to Establish ISIS

Displaced Sunni people, who fled the violence in the city of Ramadi, arrive at the outskirts of Baghdad, April 17, 2015. REUTERS/Stringer

Displaced Sunni people, who fled the violence in the city of Ramadi, arrive at the outskirts of Baghdad, April 17, 2015

An incompetence so vast that it could lead President Obama and his staff to limit air strikes on ISIS to twelve  in the lead up to Ramadi’s fall is so hard to grasp that it’s easier to believe  in a strategy of purposely allowing the Islamic State to establish itself in Iraq. Surely that can’t be the case.

Are we to believe that it is possible that the President was playing golf as Ramadi fell? Are we to believe that Liberalism and the propaganda of the left could foist this level of irresponsibility on the American electorate and the free world? The other option is to believe in a bizarre plot to bring change no one can believe in to the Middle East. The disaster and the human tragedy we are now witnessing in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen far outweighs the human cost even in the worst days of the American invasion of Iraq.

Here is the tale of monstrous arrogance and personal cowardice so profound and of errors so horrid, that one is tempted to think that the United States foreign policy is bent on establishing ISIS in the Middle East:

First, there is the President’s unwillingness to work with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to get a status of forces agreement in 2008. We could have stayed in Iraq. We didn’t have to leave, but it was election season, and President Obama had promised his base. The American president abandoned the hard won victories of countless brave American men and women. He abandoned the alliances these same men and women had earned through their courage and comIraq-ISIS-mappassion. It was a horrendous failing.

Our second national failure involved the President’s interest in the Muslim Brotherhood and the American media’s embrace of the Arab Spring. All of this led to insurrection in Syria,  the failed state of Libya, a secret arms flow of some kind and, perhaps, even to the attack at Benghazi. Classified papers only obtained by a Judicial Watch law suit declare that the CIA and the MIA predicted in August of 2012 that the fall of Libya would lead to the rise of ISIS. Weapons out of Libya, not directly tied to the United States were pouring into the wrong hands in Syria. Right or wrong, Senators McCain and Graham, who are not Muslims, tried to do something about the deteriorating conditions in February of 2012. Hence, it’s logical to assume that if the CIA and the MIA didn’t brief the President, Senators McCain and Graham did. But it was an election year. The liberal administration was so sensitive about appearances that it refused to defend our own consulate in Libya. What was going on at the Benghazi consulate anyway? Why did the Turkish ambassador visit just hours before the fatal attack? Were we “running guns” to Syrian revolutionaries who then became the core of ISIS, or were we trying to intervene and buy weapons back before they got to ISIS?

Then there were all those pathetic red lines on Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

Half measures and an administration afraid of its own shadow is always the fault of American Liberalism. It’s the ideology of easy-way out, cut-and-run solutions. Is that what America endorsed in 2008 and in 2012? If America elected a coward on purpose in 2008 because it was “tired of the war,” we’ve found the evil enemy in the White House and it is us.

On the other hand, the use of lies and propaganda in 2012 casts this important national choice in another light. Had the nation learned that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was planned weeks in advance and had nothing to do with a YouTube video, would the outcome of the election been different? If the United States media had reported that the Obama administration lied about the causes of the Benghazi debacle, would that have mattered? What if Osama Bin Laden’s letter about the role he ordered Radical Islam in to play in the Arab Spring had not been suppressed? Would the United States have been able to assert itself in time to reduce the human carnage in the Middle East?

Is ISIS the result of an evil plot or of an incorrigibly incompetent Commander-in Chief that Americans elected on purpose because they were simply “tired” of doing the right thing?

Consider a more recent example of a rarely noted cowardly act of the American President. In 2014 the President attempted to bully congress into an Authorization for the Use of Force Agreement engineered to keep future presidents from using ground forces in Iraq. Oh, President Obama’s defenders can claim it was simply a tactic designed to save the U.S. from being dragged into another ground war, but coincidentally, the 2014 authorization would have allowed the president to hide behind a senate filibuster for the rest of his term. Now he can’t. He still has complete authorization to send in ground forces. It’s on his desk. If he doesn’t send these troops in, he will be forever remembered for his sacrifice of innocent lives upon the idolatrous altar of radicalized American Liberalism. For one, I tend to ISIS is not a clever plot designed to hurt Conservative adversaries in Israel. From Russia to China, from Iraq to Iran, this administration has allowed itself to be bullied by thugs into actions that are treacherous to our allies and treasonous to our national interests abroad.

The pacifist, appeasement mentality of American Liberalism has been dominant at least since Carter. It has led us Iraq 3 state solution map 2006to be not ourselves, not America. It is a traitor to our founders’ vision of a America. It is the enemy of Reagan’s vision of America as the city on the hill, the hope of mankind. It’s easy to hear black helicopters and assume the secret enemy of America is a Trojan Horse lodged in the White House. But American Liberalism is the real enemy. It should be given no quarter ever again. Liberalism’s willingness to subscribe to a relativistic morality tolerates tyrants. It has, in effect, as a result of it’s hateful blindness, essentially given outright support for establishing the Islamic State in the Middle East.

Our national incompetence in the Middle East has been so overwhelming that our enemies have even suggested that the American administration secretly planned the rise of ISIS. Recently, an Iranian official claimed that Biden’s 2006 three-state solution for Iraq has been Obama’s unspoken, unreported U.S. foreign policy all along.  The weight of the evidence also suggests that the recent fall of Ramadi was all but orchestrated. Not only were air strikes limited to 12. In the weeks leading up to the fall of Ramadi, the United States saw the military build up and did nothing. Then there was the disinformation blaming the fall of Ramadi on Iraqis cowardice. The Iraqis claimed they lacked weaponry despite repeated requests. This follows the Benghazi pattern of blaming the attack on a YouTube video when the disaster was largely the administrations failure to respond to military intelligence reports. Was Obama playing golf, or is his Liberal hatred of the military so great that it has led to foreign policy fiasco upon foreign policy fiasco making the pattern appear to be high treason?

The larger pattern indicates that it is American Liberalism that is still the real enemy. Obama is incompetent because of Liberal arrogance that has decided that American military force is always wrong. It’s an arrogance that coddles both criminals and tyrannic criminals. It’s an arrogance that abhors the rule of law and the voices of “little people” clinging to guns and religion. Let these disasters become a rallying cry for generations. Give no quarter. Never forget! Teach and teach until America knows its enemy and destroys it forever.

Benghazi Timelines Untangled: Fox vs. The Washington Post

In early November 2012 Jennifer Griffin and David Ignatius each reported the events of the two attacks on American embassy personnel in Benghazi during the evening of September 11 and the early morning hours of September 12. Below is an attempt to harmonize the two accounts and establish a clearer, complete timeline.

Jennifer Griffin’s and David Ignatius’ time lines agree on significant details. Even so, the confluence between testimonies does little to mitigate many unanswered questions. Indeed, even more serious questions arise.

Of course, it is not the reporters themselves that are contradicting each other. Each reporter’s unnamed sources are giving differing stories. David Ignatius’ primary source, directly or indirectly, is the “base chief” in his article. It is likely that the Jennifer Griffin’s timeline is based on testimony from one member of the six member rescue squad. Fox, also, it seems, relied on sources on the ground related to the February 17th Brigade. As the CIA discovered, that crowd is a little treacherous. What follows is a scene by scene comparison of each testimony.
enhanced-buzz-13395-1351053171-2-620x454Both Ingatious’ and Jennifer Griffin’s sources agree that the Annex became aware of the assault on the Benghazi embassy at 9:40 (3:40 Washington time). This time is confirmed by the first leaked email that arrives in the Situation Room twenty-five minutes later. However, assuming the senior intelligence official of Ignatious’ report is indeed the Annex Security chief, this aspect of his report to the Post is refuted in Adam Housley’s report of 11/3/2012. Housely’s “sources on the ground” in Benghazi claim the security chief received requests for assistance at least an hour before Woods received the radio call and “agitated” for permission to aid the embassy.

After this the testimonies diverge. The Washington Post sources say an alarm of some sort sounded and that a call requesting assistance came in from the embassy. The Fox sources claim to have heard gunfire, and Hannity reports that the call was a radio call, begging, not casually requesting help.

It is reasonable to assume that men stationed towards the perimeter of the Annex heard shots, but no alarm and that a commander within the Annex, perhaps in the rear, heard the alarm, but not the shots. It is plain that the calls from the embassy were filled with emotion. Perhaps the radio call occurred while Sean Smith was dying.

Jennifer Griffin’s sources said that Tyrone Woods and at least two others ignored orders to stand down and rushed to help the ambassador. In contrast, according to the Post’s source, twenty minutes passed in which Tyrone Woods and others  “agitated” to go to Ambassador Stephens’ aid while the base chief sought help from a Libyan militia group. It is very likely that during these twenty minutes Ambassador Stephens inhaled the smoke that ultimately killed him. Of course, despite the assertion in the first email, the February 17th militia never came. It strains credulity to even imply anyone really thought they’d show.

Ignatius’ source says, however, that no one ignored orders because, by 10:04 exactly, the base chief and the leader of Tyrone Wood’s team both agreed that they could wait no longer. After all, what kind of leader would be so weak that an independent contractor and a CIA GRS team would ignore his order? Anyhow, as it happened, two cars left the Annex by 10:04 exactly.

It took six minutes, under heavy fire, to return to the Annex, but it took an extra fifteen minutes, a total of twenty-one minutes, to arrive at the Annex. This was because of, oddly, a traffic jam caused by Libyan militia groups not
coming to help at the embassy. By 10:20 the GRS team was ten agents strong. Five of these, including Woods, if according to Jennifer Griffith’s source, retook the embassy. If Griffith’s source is correct, Woods and the others did not really notice whether there was any leadership bringing up the rear. According to Ignatius’ source, the firefight, email2or the exchange of fire, took fifteen minutes making the time at the Libyan compound 10:35.  The second of the leaked emails arrived in Washington DC about twenty-five minutes later (10:54 Benghazi time), confirming this timeline.

After a search and rescue of about another thirty minutes, at 11:15 the first car with embassy personnel returned to the Annex. There are unanswered questions here. Two cars left the Annex but were there more now returning from the diplomatic mission compound? Who returned and in which cars? How long did it take for enemy fire to develop? Did the enemy discover the location of the Annex by following the CIA rescue team, or did they already have that information? All accounts agree, however, that by about Midnight Benghazi time [6:00 Washington DC time] the Annex itself came under attack. Very importantly, the Washington Post’s source establishes that an unarmed Predator Drone had begun to make available real time visuals of the events unfolding in Benghazi.

Here the sources differ. Fox’s sources say, starting at Midnight, additional calls for backup went out. The enemy fire was significant enough to warrant these requests. Ignatius’ source calls enemy fire sporadic and suggests that at 1:01 AM, exactly, some (we are not told who) felt the attack might be over. If there were a few dozen marines on the ground or a single attack helicopter, it would have been over.

After this, the Post’s timeline seems much more plausible than the one developed by Fox.

Ignatious’ source states that a charter plane from Tripoli, organized by Tripoli’s CIA station chief, arrived at 1:15 AM with another 5 CIA guys including a “case officer” and two G.I.’s.

Some have speculated that General Ham was relieved of command by a junior officer for attempting to ignore an order from perhaps as high up as Leon Panetta. The CIA flight, authorized in response to the original attack on the mission compound, was preferred over other options.

Whatever the background of this “charter flight,” the new team arrives at the Annex without the Libyan militia and before the mortar attacks began. But they don’t get there until after 5:00 AM. This is when Doherty arrives to support Woods. Fox’s sources have this support arriving a little before 3:00 AM and the Libyan militia arriving just after them at about 3:00. Fox’s sources say that Tyrone Woods died at 4:00 AM; the Post’s source says he died after support arrived at 5:00 AM.

Ignatious’ source says that the mortar attack began at 5:15. This corresponds to a fourth leaked email that arrived in Washington D.C. about 25 minutes later at 11:57 PM (5:57 AM Benghazi time).

email3

Finally, the Post’s source says the entire attack was over at 5:25, just ten minutes after it began. Within half an hour, the Libyan militia arrived and escorted the Americans to their planes.

It sounds like a surrender. The enemy’s attack let up when word of the flight from Tripoli reached the Benghazi airport around 1:00. The Ansar al-Sharia/Al Qaeda group, stood off and let the Americans reach the Annex. When they saw how pitiful the American response had been [paragraph 12], they re-engaged. Then someone surrendered. The choices were surrender or take on all of Benghazi. It would have been Somalia all over again. Only this time it was only a month before a presidential election. Instead, someone surrendered.

Significantly, Fox and the Post differ on the second drone. Much more significantly, they differ on whether or not Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty painted the mortar placement. Most significantly, they differ on whether or not, with the first drone in place, the CIA Annex requested assistance. Was the flight from Tripoli in response to a request for help from the Annex at midnight? If no one will admit that there was a request for help, then perhaps the flight wasn’t sanctioned, and perhaps someone else’s conscience, besides Tyrone Woods,’ led him to ignore an order .

Three Hundred Marines Stand Against a Persian Army

Three hundred marines stand against a Persian army. Like those original Spartans, if they aren’t airportbetrayed, they will win.

Those first marines from Sparta died to the last man for a divided Greek world because it was their duty. They changed the history of Western Civilization.

Today three hundred marines, surrounded by mad Muslim suicide bombers, hailing from what was once called Persia, have put their lives on the line because it’s their duty. According to Olie North, today’s brave three hundred have the enemy just where they want them. Truthfully, with the correct support, Olie is probably right. The entire army of ISIS has no chance against three hundred properly supplied US marines. History is just waiting to be written.

According to legend, the original brave 300 would have stopped Xerxes if they had not been betrayed by one Ephialtes, the son of Eurydemus, a man of Malis.Map-of-persia-2

Sadly, though, because of Mogadishu, and then Benghazi, and because of the recent shocking snub of Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, no one can assume that these marines will receive the ammunition, air support, or supplies they need.

In a final committed act of heroism, the betrayed 300 of Thermopylae died to a man and unified Greece. The high tide of Persian arms receded before the resolute West. This is not how history should be repeated. Indeed, it is not how history can be repeated. If the United States allows its internal enemies to betray these 300 Marines, it is because we are weak, cowardly, and decadent to the core of our national consciousness. That’s a history we need not see written.

Should our President go golfing or to a Vegas fund raiser this time, our military, as a unified force, had better well follow thewoods example of Tyron Woods, no matter what the personal cost. They better not stand down this time.

America would do better to fear lawless obedience to treacherous orders than the military’s courage to do what it knows to be its duty. America does not need to fear its Pattons and McCarthys any more than it needed to fear that General Washington would make himself a king. Those men were patriots.  On the other hand, America would do well to note the rise of those like Ephialtes: Benedict Arnolds, generals, and leaders who bow before foreign powers.

Update February 17, 2015

Former Navy SEAL and author of Lone Survivor Marcus Luttrell tells Fox and Friends that 300 Marines are enough to retake Iraq and rid the world of ISIS. No argument here.

Update May 6, 2015

Marcus was not specifically saying that he meant the 300 marines at Ain al-Asad were the ones that would take out ISIS. He meant any 300 marines. In context, Marcus was speaking of a private military company of about 300 that he could organize to do the job:

no i didn’t say that…i said i could put together an Army of PMC’s to take out ISIS

Update March 1, 2015

Fighting continues around al-Bagdadi, the small strategic city about 10 miles east of the Ain al-Asad air base. The town itself is surrounded, but air strikes and local troops continue to contest the city itself.

Update April 17, 2015

As Islamic State radicals attacked, thousands fled Ramadi, a larger city about 70 miles southeast of the Ain al-Asad air base. There are currently no plans to remove the hundreds of marines stationed there. Ramadi itself has become a ghost town.

Obama Use of Force Request Protects ISIS

As of May 23, as of the fall of Ramadi, the President of the United States and the Liberals of his party are hiding from the responsibility the United States has to their allies in the Middle East. This they do by attempting to claim that the GOP is holding up the United States’ response by failing to give Obama his requested Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This is all absurd, bizarre theater for the consumption of an easily manipulated American media. The truth is that Obama’s request for an authorization of the use of force against the Islamic State is actually pledge to protect ISIS.

On February 11th President Obama formally asked congress for a three-year authorization for the use of force against ISIS. This AUMF actually a deauthorizes his ability to use military force in the fight against terrorism.

President Obama has already said he has no need of further authorization to continue the air offensive against ISIS epaor to fight terrorism and terrorist organizations. The President has already been granted wide ranging executive power to fight terrorism by way of the virtual carte blanche congress granted former President Bush over a decade ago. But, apparently, ISIS is now classified by the EPA as an endangered species of some sort, for, instead of using the force he is already authorized to use, Obama’s proposed legislation would do away with the Bush Authorization of Military Force.

Were the GOP Senate and House of Representatives to “grant” this new authorization of force, the new AUMF would supersede the old. Because the new authorization virtually forbids the use of boots on the ground, President Obama would no longer have the authority to launch an extended ground campaign against ISIS. The President is asking the Republican run congress to handcuff him, so that he speciescannot be forced by the American public opinion to launch a once and for all war of annihilation against the radical terrorist state.

ABC news claims that it is “ironic” that Obama has relied on the 2002 Bush Authorization for the Use of Military Force since he has said he is in favor of limiting and then repealing this AUMF.  What is truly ironic is that Obama is endeavoring to limit and then repeal the 2002 AUMF under the guise of requesting authority to defeat ISIS. That’s the opposite of what anyone expects. It’s deceitful, Orwellian, and worthy of a tyrant. The American people support the President’s request for authorization by 54% precisely because they don’t understand that the President is asking to limit his authority, not increase it. It is doubly ironic that the President has chosen this historic moment, a moment in which the clear and present danger of Islamic terrorism is far more obvious than it was leading up to 9-11-2001,  to seek to limit America’s authority to defend itself. The President of the United States’ request for an authorization of military force is a Trojan horse. It is really a Pledge of Protection for the Islamic State.

Whyisismark does the president need a set of handcuffs to protect him against a surge of public opinion suddenly in favor of a massive military operation in the fragile Middle East? Perhaps he realizes as much as the rest of us how precarious the safety of the United States is in the midst of this administration’s catastrophic foreign policy.

UPDATE 2/15/15

Senator John McCain, vocal proponent of the President Bush’s Iraq surge strategy, widely credited with winning the war in Anbar province, said Sunday that congress should not limit the president by tying his hands in accordance with President Obama’s own authorization of the use of military force agreement.

UPDATE 2/14/15

Orin Hatch and even some Democrats agree that Obama is not asking for more force. He’s doing the orrin-hatch-ap-640x480opposite. He’s tying not only his own hands but those of a future president.

UPDATE 5/23/2015

This is the week that witnessed the fall of Ramadi in large part due directly to the failure of the President’s limited use of air support. During this week’s discussion of a serious revision of Middle Eastern policy, Speaker Bohner’s commented that the President’s request for the AUMF is so useless that the president ought to rescind it. The comments arose because the President’s Liberal allies are, of all things, trying to use this pathetic excuse to duck President Obama’s complete foreign policy failure.  Starring in the charade, Representative Pelosi took the Orwellian position that Congress needed to act on a use of force agreement because of the fall of Ramadi. It’s an utterly absurd position, beyond laughable because it suggests that medication may be necessary. The President can act on the military suggestions of the generals at any time with the complete legal support of the congress. Pelosi’s comments are right up there next to President Obama’s suggestion that global warming led to the rioting of the Arab Spring in Syria.

Yes, the Liberals are very, very desperate to have rationale this weak, but will the American media call them on it? Not a chance.

Once again: “The fight could be extended to any ‘closely related successor entity’ to the Islamic State extremists, but the measure does not authorize large-scale ground operations.” The current AUMF allows the expansion of operations to fight terrorism wherever terrorist bases arise and places no qualifications on the use of ground troops. Obviously, Pelosi and her Liberal allies seek to deflect criticism of the President who has every legal resource to do what is ethically required to end the reign of terror, the genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place under ISIS.