|The Obama model of foreign policy malfeasance
By Mark Alexander
Earlier this month Barack Hussein Obama skipped to Europe in order to duck accountability for the VA "death panels," which forced seriously ill veterans into fraudulent waiting lines for government medical care, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of vets.
While in Europe, Obama amused the world with his assurances to our allies, especially Poland and Ukraine, that he was in control and would contain any further Russian expansionism in the region.
He also stopped at Normandy for the observance of the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, but his faux expressions of homage there were in stark contrast to the message of a genuine world leader, Ronald Reagan, on the 40th Anniversary in 1984.
Of course, Obama's expression of appreciation was also undermined by the fact that, days earlier, he secretly traded the "Taliban Five" for an Army deserter, thereby spitting in the face of all uniformed Patriots who were injured, and on the graves of those who died, in the pursuit and capture of the Taliban terrorists and, later, in the search for the deserter for whom the terrorists were exchanged.
Recall, if you will, shortly after the "Russian Spring" bloomed in the Crimean region of Ukraine, that Obama downplayed any Russian threat to the West, noting they are "a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness." (It's a rich moment indeed when this president derides the "weakness" of others.)
He then attempted to pivot from Putin, telling our European allies, "I continue to be much more concerned, when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan," a reference to al-Qaida's promised "American Hiroshima."
Really? One could argue, of course, that Obama has already nuked the U.S. with his disastrous social and economic policies. But by releasing five of the most dangerous Afghan terrorist principals -- without so much as consulting Congress, the DoD or CIA -- Obama made it clear that his political agenda trumps concern about our national and homeland security.
And if Obama is "much more concerned" about Manhattan than Russia, then why did his leftist protégé, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, expose and shut down the NYPD's undercover intel unit responsible for keeping tabs on Islamist organizations -- which we know provide funding to terrorist groups and cover for operatives here in the U.S.?
In fact, the Obama administration has pulled back surveillance of so-called "Islamic Centers" and mosques nationwide, providing fertile seed ground for another catastrophic attack on our nation. And as a result, Islamists on our soil are now testing the integrity of our national power grid, public water supplies and other infrastructure.
Does anyone believe that Obama and his administration hacks are any more committed to or capable of deterring asymmetric threats from Islamic terrorists than symmetric threats like Russian and Chinese expansionism? For that matter, does anyone believe anything he says these days, given that he's now been caught in a plethora of bald-faced lies?
Patriots, these are indeed dangerous times. And they're becoming more dangerous -- not by the month, but by the minute.
Well ahead of the 2008 election, we wrote that Obama was a "National Security Neophyte," an ultra-leftist who deceptively portrayed himself as a "centrist candidate." We further warned that if he "parlayed that deception into victory over John McCain, there will be plenty of 'change' in the coming years -- unpleasant at best and catastrophic at worst."
Since our nation's founding, no candidate for president of the United States has been less qualified than Obama, and he has aptly and consistently demonstrated his lack of preparedness in matters of national security. Likewise, it should be noted that no electoral majority has been less qualified to elect a president.
Recall that Obama insisted, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Truman did, and Kennedy did."
Of course, Franklin Roosevelt did not hold direct talks with Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo -- he annihilated them. Harry Truman's "pre-conditions" for peace negotiations with Japan included two atomic bombs, and he didn't talk with North Korea's Kim Il Sung after the dictator's invasion of South Korea in 1950. Instead, Truman sent troops. As for John Kennedy, he did meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. And, having taken Kennedy's measure, Khrushchev surmised that he could outflank his youthful American adversary after his Bay of Pigs fiasco. As a result, the Soviets provocatively placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, and the world's two superpowers nearly came to nuclear war.
And what has Obama's talk achieved?
He has systematically dismantled our national security capabilities, which have taken decades to construct.
In a few short years, we have watched the Middle East melt down after Obama sounded the retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, and falsely claimed that al-Qaida and Islamic terrorism were "on the run" after Osama's termination. Then we witnessed the Benghazi cover-up, his acquiescence to Iran's nuclear ambitions, the disastrous "red line" and subsequent Syrian spin, and now, his acquiescence to Russia's expansionist ambitions.
Obama failed to understand that the frontline in defense against a nuclear weapon detonation in an East Coast urban center like Manhattan was in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world were lured into those zones like moths to a flame so that the most motivated, best equipped and effectively lethal force in the history of the world eliminated them. The Bush Doctrine succeeded at keeping the battle on their turf and off of ours.
So where do things stand today?
"[T]he American combat mission in Iraq has ended," Obama triumphantly proclaimed in August 2010. "Operation Iraqi Freedom is over..." How's Obama's cut-and-run strategy working out? al-Qaida jihadists, spilling out of Syria, have now seized the key cities of Mosul and Tikrit -- after retaking Fallujah in January. They are on the way to Baghdad.
According to Robert Ford, Obama's former ambassador to Syria: "These al-Qaida offshoots ... now pose a potential threat to our security. These extremists enjoy a sanctuary from which they may mount attacks against Europe or the United States [and] hasten the day when American forces will have to intervene against al-Qaida [again]."
The "Obama Doctrine" in Iraq ensures that America's incredible sacrifice in Iraq was for nothing -- as will be the case in Afghanistan after our retreat there -- but as was the case with the Clinton and Carter, they leave their foreign policy disasters for Republicans to clean up.
Recall that John McCain, in his 2008 campaign against Obama, was asked how long we should be in Iraq. He responded, "A hundred years," meaning that our continued presence in the region was critical to contain the resurgence of al-Qaida. Of course McCain was pilloried by Obama's Leftist cadres, but the fact is, McCain understood the nature of the Long War commitment we would have to make in order to contain the Jihadist threat. (For the record, virtually every terrorist act in the last five decades has been perpetrated by Islamists.)
A few notable Democrats concur with Ambassador Ford's assessment that al-Qaida is coming back strong, even though they have underwritten Obama's foreign policy.
Obama's former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently affirmed the worldwide resurgence of al-Qaida: "Whether they call themselves al Qaeda or Boko Haram or Ansar al Sharia, they are all part of the same global jihadist movement." And Sen. Dianne Feinstein followed, "I know they will come after us if they can. I see the intelligence. Terror is not down in the world, it is up -- both deaths and injuries in many, many different places. al-Qaida has metastasized."
So, what exactly is Obama's strategy? Apparently he thinks our foreign is in good hands with Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, they are the sole members of each other's mutual admiration society. Earlier this month to the laughter of the State Department press corps, Kerry's lead spokesperson, Jen Psaki, asserted, "I would argue the president doesn't give himself enough credit for what he's done around the world." When asked for clarification, she pointed to "engagement initiatives like Iran, what we've done on Ukraine, [and] efforts to dive in and engage around the world. ... We're talking about engagement in the world and taking on tough issues that present themselves."
Seriously, she said that.
As for Kerry, he is more concerned about the welfare of Palestinians than the al-Qaida threat. Taking a page right out of a book by that erstwhile peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, entitled, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Kerry celebrated Holocaust Remembrance Day by telling a group of his Trilateral Commission comrades that should Israel not abide by the terms of his "peace plan," it might become an "apartheid state with second-class citizens."
In response to that gaffe, there were renewed calls in Congress for Kerry's resignation. We in our humble shop, however, will still settle for his indictment for treason.
Obama recently observed, "When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don't really have to do anything, just let them talk."
Unfortunately, the world is now fully aware of Obama's profound ignorance.
John Adams wrote, "National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." In fact, it is the primary constitutional duty of statesmen.
Ronald Reagan astutely observed, "The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon. ... In the end, it all comes down to leadership, and that is what this country is looking for now."
Indeed, we still are.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.