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.

Delta Force Raid Blows Holes in Obama’s ‘Stand Down’ Policy on ISIS

The Delta Force raid on ISIS blows holes in America’s ‘stand down’ policy on ISIS. Why hasn’t the United States run more operations like this? Imagine how much evil could have been stopped.

black hawkCouldn’t we have saved the Ethiopian Christians in Libya? Surely we could have stopped the murder of Christians in Syria and Christians and Christian children in Iraq. And what of the Yazidis and the women used as sex slaves, or the priceless historic artifacts destroyed by these “Islamic idealists.”

Before the Delta Force raid, it was reasonable to assume that perhaps ISIS was so effectively dug in that the cost of doing the American thing would be prohibitive. That assumption can now be laid to rest. We can do more. We have done more. We must do more.

At the very least, we could have saved Ramadi and kept more U.S. weapons from falling into enemy hands. At Ain al-Asad air base air base, just 70 miles northwest, are 300 marines that t313754_img650x420_img650x420_crophe Islamic State is avoiding like the plague. Once the Isalmists accidentally discovered the overwhelming firepower at the air base last February, their offensive veered swiftly to the south. When your enemy runs, chase him! Why haven’t we let those marines loose!

If we could stop ISIS and do not, to the extent that they are using United States arms, captured or supplied, to the extent that our national incompetence opened the door for this scourge, we are bear responsibility for the innocent lives brutalized by the Islamic State’s crimes against humanity. All together there are over 3,000 United States troops on the ground in Iraq. Surely, we could have done more to avert this continuing human tragedy. Why isn’t the United States doing anything?

Some GOP voices, perhaps intimidated by the American media’s disdain for “boots on the ground,” don’t dare call for ground forces. Instead, they feel like hawks asking for more airstrikes even as strikes during the 24 hours before Ramadi fell were A displaced Yazidi Iraqi carries his daughter as they cross the Syrian border at Fishkhabour.limited to twelve sorties. No air campaign in history has ever been run this way. Why have we been holding back even on critical air support?

The answer to this precedent setting waste of air power is straight forward enough. “General” Susan Rice and President Obama are running the air campaign personally. No black helicopters there. How does anyone hate America so much that he or she rejects our traditional role of taking down tyrants and rescuing the innocents?

black hawk3Perhaps all along ISIS really has been “the junior varsity.” After all, they’ve only defeated Iraqi troops, troops who are often composed of Shiites depending on Sunnis to watch their back in a Sunni land being overrun by Sunni radicals. When the Kurds got involved, they won. Even the Iranian mercenaries, fully Shia, are able to drive off the ISIS fighters. How many of these Islamic State fighters are really, after all, just weekend Internet warriors? Sure, they’re sick brutality makes them dangerous enough when up against unarmed French policemen and abandoned civilian populations, but can they actually fight a real army? The magnificent success of the American Delta Force, demands we find out.

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.