Terrorist Friendly Obama Doctrine In Foreign Policy Has Made The World More Unstable
Ian R Thorpe, 17 April, 2016
As he campaigned to win the Presidency for the first time in 2008, Barack Hussein Obama promised in future comflicts around the world, HIS administration would support the underdog, the rebels trying to overthrow legitimate and internationally recognised governments and the 'freedom fighters' who were aiming to forment unrest and conflict. Those were not his exact words of course, the vacuous windbag would need at least a thousand words of cliches, banalities, racist rjetoric borrowed from US black precher - politicians, and more than a few over emphasised personal pronouns to express such a simple message.
But the gist of it was The United States of America would become The United States of Obamaland would become a wellsping of human rights (whatever that means), friend of revolutionaries (whether their cause was just or they were theocratic tyrants)and the defender of Islamic extremism.
In 2010 the north African state of Libya, ruled by an unpleasant but secular tyrant Muammar (Mad Dog) Gadaffi, was the most prosperous and socially advanced nation on the african continent. Then Gadaffi refused to bow to Wasdhington's diktat and Washington decided regime change was the solution. And Obama, who has always denied being a closet Muslim despite having spoken of "MY muslim faith" sometime before he announced his plan to run for president, decided what Libya, Africa and the world needed was another Sunni Muslim fundamentalist theocreacy.
And so, with the support of UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nikolas Sarkozy (to the eternal shame of their respective nations) a western coalition (the FUKUS axis) began a bombing campain that would turn prosperous, secular Libya into a failed state, with Islamic Theocrats, Tribal warlords and criminal gangs vying for the right to claim they are the ligitimate government.
And yet, five years ago, President Obama had the audacity to mock the hopelessness of the Libyan people by hailing the success of the military campaign in Libya as one of the foreign policy triumphs of his presidency.
On the day Khadafy was killed, in October 2011, and that repungant cow Hillary Clinton bragged, "We came, we saw, he died," Obama took a victory lap and Obama declared, "Mission accomplished". “Our brave pilots have flown in Libya’s skies (Libya had no effective airforce to oppose FUKUS axis air strikes), our sailors have provided support off Libya’s shores, and our leadership at NATO has helped guide our coalition,” he declared. “Without putting a single US service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives.”
He was wrong, within months Libya collapsed into chaos and violence. It became a terrorist hub from where Al Qaeda and ISIS could penetrate deep into Africa, a combat zone where more than 10,000 people including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues, have been killed by Islamists.
In a Fox News interview last week, Obama confessed his negligence in "failing to plan for the day after" the dictator was overthrown.
Today he calls Libya his worst mistake and one has to wonder is the crack addicted former rent boy so detached from reality he thinks Syria and Yemen have been successes. But though he may have changed his self awarded grade from an A to an F, his commitment to "leading from behind" — thought to be a euphemism for American passivity and abdication, but with a man who, allegedly, likes to take it from behind you never know - hasn’t budged.
The president acknowledges now that his policy in Libya ended in disaster but a few months ago praised himself for 'brining peace to Syria, even though the fighting was at its most intense as President Assad, backed by elite troops from Iran and China and provided with air cover by Russia which prevented intervention by the US Air Force, routed ISIS and the Free Syrian Army.
Elsewhere Obama has pinned the blame for the Libya disaster on his Europe’s failure to stay engaged and there is some meriy=t in that argument. "When I go back, and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism," he recently told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, "because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up."
When I wrote for a now defunct online publication (sorry no link, the archives are gone) that when a nation or coalition decides to effect regime change they should be prepared to leave an army of occupation in place to prevent the leaderless nation fragmenting, I was attacked by left wing commenters for proposing a return to colonialism. I was able to remind them I had opposed the intervention whereas they had allowed themselves to be suckered by Obama's fantastical claim that boming a country to rubble was a necessary 'humanitarian' exercise.
When the United States heads for the exits however, its allies are apt to follow suit. And Obama, who was sold the idea of intervention in Libya by the then Secretary Of State and now wannabe
wicked with of the west president Hillary Clinton in the first place, had no interest in sticking around.
Libya was quickly forgotten by White House team, nobody likes a loser and that applies tenfold in the USA. "The inattention was not just neglect. It was policy," The New York Times observed in a lengthy review of the Libyan fiasco earlier this year. The administration imposed “fierce limits” on any US role in Libya’s metamorphosis — conditions so strict that America in effect washed its hands of responsibility for the country’s fate. Not surprisingly, that fate has been ghastly.
It may seem astonishing that Obama, who so harshly condemned his predecessor’s blunders in Iraq, would wind up repeating the gravest of those blunders in Libya — namely, not being ready for the instability and insurgency that would follow Western intervention. As military historian Max Boot wrote, "by 2011 it was not exactly a secret that bad things happen if the United States and its allies overthrow a strongman without having a plan for what comes next."
But Obama is better at deploring other people’s foreign policy messes than at learning from them (or from his own mistakes - he ordered the escalation of the war in Afghanistan). The lesson that should have been learned from the Iraq war was that the western powers have no business intervening militarily in the Middle East, westerners have little or no understanding of the middle eastern mindset or that roots of hatreds that have been sustained for hundreds of years, thus and that the greater the intervention, the greater the resulting fiasco.
When in January 2007 President George W. Bush announced his "surge" that sent additional troops to Iraq to implement a new "counterinsurgency" strategy, the first term Senator Barack Hussein Obama Obama was scornful: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
In the event, of course, Bush’s surge proved a remarkable success. By the time Obama took office, Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the backfoot, attacks were down 90 percent, and Iraq was being governed by democratically elected leaders. The new commander in chief was happy to claim political credit for victory in Iraq (he's always keen to take credit, not so hot on making decisions), which Vice President Biden trumpeted early on as "one of the great achievements" of the Obama administration.
Even so, Obama screwed up by pulling all US forces out of Iraq prematurely, having failed to heed warnings that the swift disappearance of tens of thousands of American peacekeepers would leave a security vacuum that the region’s deadliest forces would rush to exploit. Obama’s determination to be Islam friendly wrecked what had so painstakingly been won in Iraq. Without America’s restraining presence, Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government grew ruthlessly authoritarian, Iran’s influence intensified, and ISIS began its horrific reign of terror. A major own goal for team Obama
More “leading from behind” followed in Syria. Obama issued tough threats of chemical weapons “red lines” and demanded Bashar al-Assad resign, but the bristling words were never backed up with deeds. As America’s credibility diminished, predictable consequences ensued: soaring death tolls, vast refugee floods, and the emboldening of antidemocratic regimes from Moscow to Beijing.
Yet even now, Obama cannot see that a doctrine premised on avoiding the involvement of American ground troops in the world’s conflicts is bound to fail. A policy built around US disengagement has only intensified global disorder and shifted the balance of military power from the west to Russia and China . And yet Obama still maintains that the calamities his approach caused in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan shows he was right all along. The reality is very different. Since 2009, the myth of American supremacy has become so discredited through the ineptitude of the man who claimed he would be a peacemaker and joybinger that the world has become far more dangerous and unstable. The price of American retreat has been terrible, made all the worse by a president too rigid to change his mind.