Obama: Guru or Gump? (Part I)

"Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void".  Thus spake, well, wrote, actually, Jeffrey Goldberg in his long, detailed and absolutely fascinating analysis of President Obama's foreign policy accumulated over several years of fairly close contact and interviews and published in The Atlantic magazine.

A year earlier, when the administration suspected that the Assad regime was contemplating the use of chemical weapons, Obama had declared: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us [my emphasis] is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

A year later, Assad's chemical weapon attack on the people of the Damascus suburb of Ghouta murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas.  That was not so much 'a line in the sand' well and truly crossed but, in effect, Assad had kicked the sand in Obama's face!  Virtually the entire administration, led by that prize dummkopf, John Kerry, were insistent that, in effect, 'something must be done'!  The combined forces of the State Department and the Pentagon were insistent that given Obama's earlier warning this was a direct challenge to his authority - which it was!  Nevertheless, Obama, in an act of real political courage, ignored his own previous words and defied the entire Washington establishment.  He refused to commit American ground troops into Syria.

Now you could say that he was a dummkopf, himself, for drawing his red line in the first place, and you would be right but, a shrewd man acknowledging a mistake, will not double down on that mistake, and Obama didn't.  'Praise the Lord and don't pass the ammunition' because I dread to think of where a 'boots on the ground' invasion of Syria would have led.  My guess is that it would have solved nothing and that Arlington cemetery would have been filled to capacity!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

(Alas, duty calls and I must set forth and begin to deliver the first of a thousand VOTE LEAVE pamphlets to the long-suffering folk of downtown Milborne Port but, like Gen. MacArthur, 'I shall return!' to continue on this subject.)

 

Comments

[Loz]

I wonder if Obama calculated that Putin wouldn't be able to resist rubbing Obama's nose in the red lines by clearing up the chemicals and then putting Rooskie boots on the ground in Syria?

So for the political price of a red face over the red lines, he gained: -

1. Removal of chems from Syria
2. An enemy drawn away from threatening us and fighting our friends, and rather, into actual conflict with our other enemies (aka "Bait and Bleed").
3. Not a single Marine's bones
4. Not so much as a dime

Even if not true, if I were him, in retirement I'd spin that up into a "I had to wait until long after the event to publish this" type memoir, to obtain a glorious legacy.

SoD

[JK]

Problem for "the red line" then ... and truer now, was that the area where 'the red line' which was supposedly crossed was, heavily agricultural - with agricultural resources/supplies.

Those "agriculture supplies" inconveniently lending an even more dangerous "signature for Sarin precursor" which made the intel - pre-analysis - even more dangerous.

Which analytic results - turned out to be (in IC circles termed) very much NOT a slam-dunk is why, it was best Congress be asked to "sign on."

Nowadays of course - post-analysis - we hear more "well ... our credibility suffered" ... which to my mind at least is multitudes better than the bones of a single Marine's.

[Whitewall]

In general I view the Obama "foreign policy" venture as a campaign promise with American boots as the pawns. I'll remove them he promised and VP Biden declares Iraq a success. Some success. They were removed and there were consequences. After the 2012 re election when the news was filled with murders and beheadings, a gradual re entry was begun with, as of this past weekend, over five thousand troops are back in Iraq with more coming albeit slowly and quietly. Obama promised "no American boots on the ground in 2012". Well, the pawns are there again for political expediency.

Syria? Some chemical weapons were declared and those were removed we are told. Just not all of them as not all were declared. Syria was and is "fly paper" and if the mongoloid Russians want hold of it, let them have it. Better watch the Baltic States if you are European. If Vlad moves on the Baltic States, which is likely, they are on their own. NATO is a frame work without testicles. The EU? Brussels is a German puppet and the mentally deranged Angela Merkel is in charge.

So much American foreign policy now is little more than "wash our hands" of much of the world. That appeals to some people, but the consequences wash up on beaches of innocent friends and allies....at least they were. Events have consequences and many civilians are going to die needlessly. Until the EU super structure in its political form is demolished and the HQ in Brussels is boarded up tight with a dome over the building with a sign saying "never again", Europe will never muster the virility it will take to remove Islam from within its borders.

[JK]

"Some success. They were removed and there were consequences."

Yep. Some success. But, keep in mind:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

(Just scroll to the end WW, that's not VP Biden's signature rather, Ryan Crocker's.)

And keep in mind IS (then AQI) first declared its Caliphate not in Mosul 2014 but rather Ramadi in 2003. Al-Baghdadi was in Camp Bucca at that time, but then released by US authorities in 2006 going on to, the stuff (beheadings, immolations etc) that we've seen since 2012.

Recall the question posed by 20Committee? John's rhetorical reply?

"Who lost Iraq?" ... ... "We all did."

Far as Syria goes; who in their right mind would want the place? Oh yeah that's right - I do remember the Saudis promise to pay the expenses if the US Marines would act as their mercenaries.

[Whitewall]

JK I remember the Saudis promising the Marines' expenses, I also remember the Saudis promising to pay for Mosques in Germany and elsewhere. I resent our sneaking more combat troops into Iraq after Obama using them a election pawns. Re Biden, I am thinking of Biden's on camera video appearances claiming the "success" that was Iraq. The public watched Biden on tv.

[JK]

Well if it helps, I ain't too fond of "sneaking" combat troops anywhere near the place either.

Of course there is the little matter of, "just what might Erdogan do with the Kurds if, US troops were not very nearby"?

(Oh. I guess we could gather up some more of those "moderate Sunni freedom fighters" McCain & Graham LLC are always talking up. Spend another $10M/fighter (plus equipment) then insert 'em into Syria so ISIS can promptly "capture" 'em?)

[Whitewall]

JK, btw, I had wondered for a while if you were out of commission somewhere or just "stove up". Good to see you up and able to take nourishment I assume. Those "moderate Sunni fighters" are a fickle bunch. Our old buddy Erdogan is playing both sides: shaking down European governments to hold back "refugees" and acting like a NATO ally the next moment. Either way, he is acting as conduit for Islam to over run Europe. The Saudis don't mind that.

[JK]

Thanks for having me in your thoughts WW.

Wasn't stove up and neither (exactly) out-of-commission; but I did get to see me some bunch of fucking huge amounts of worthless sand.

Speaking of which (sand) I came away (back to AR) more (if possible) convinced than before that, sand is hardly worth dying for. Unless maybe one is a "sand-person" or, a Bedouin or somesuch.