Saturday, January 12, 2013

Consequences of an Obama Foreign Policy "Success"

At best, the Obamistas behave like children when it comes to foreign policy. They get easily enthralled with any new shiny thing that crosses their path; they have no historical knowledge or even medium-term memory. They see something and they want it. A shiny ring in the shop! Break the glass! Destroy all the other merchandise! Get that ring! Once they have the object in their little sweaty hands they, of course, find that the ring is connected to the pin on a grenade  . . . Oops! Oh well, time to go to the next shiny thing . . .

I was reminded of this on reading about French military operations in Mali over the past couple of days. It seems that the British, too, will now get involved in supporting the French in their campaign against Islamist rebels affiliated to Al-Qaeda.  I mentioned this issue before in a Halloween post where I pointed out,
The insanity of Obama's Libya policy gets further underlined when we see that now our clueless Secretary of State has gone to Algeria to seek support for US-French action against the growing threat of Islamic terrorism in Africa, in particular in Mali. There used to be somebody who knew how to keep those crazies under control; his name was Qaddafi. Maybe Hillary should go talk to him . . . oh, yes, I forgot, "We came, we saw, he died!"
The unpleasant drag queen who used to run Libya knew how to keep these groups under control. Instead of working with the old buzzard, we listened to the Europeans, and participated in an insane war to have him removed. By the time we decided that Qaddafi was the devil, he was cooperating with us in the battle against the Islamists, had given up his involvement in international terrorism, and abandoned his WMD program. He was like an old repentant Mafia chieftain who sought to make points with the FBI.  He also, it turned out, preferred dealing with American oil companies than with European ones, the real source of Europe's sudden rage against Loretta of Libya. Back when he was sponsoring terror, the Euros were terrified of him and opposed Reagan's actions against him. When he no longer posed a threat, ah, well . . . time to go to war, well, have the Americans go to war, that is.

As I have noted on many occasions, the surest way to lose American lives and treasure is to listen to the Europeans. Europe has not gotten anything right on the world stage since, well, since . . . well, since at least the French Revolution. How long before we are pulled into the Mali mess?

So now the shiny ring is in Western hands, and guess what? It, indeed, was connected to a grenade. We have Islamists running rampant in Mali and must go about killing them. All a pattern of throwing away successes and seeking defeats.

Elections have consequences.

21 comments:

  1. I continue to believe Obama will screw up so badly in the next 2 years that he will be forced out of office one way or the other: by sensible stalwarts in his own party or an angry Islamist with some kind of illegal weapon. That's not too much to hope for, is it? That he'll overstep somehow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately that would leave Biden in charge. As we used to say in the military side; better to have someone who makes the wrong decisions than someone who can't make any decisions.

      Delete
    2. Well, Biden is only STUPID, whereas Obama is EVIL...

      I think STUPID would be less destructive to what's left of our country.

      Delete
  2. He will definitely continue to overstep and screw up. What else could one call what he's done to date? It's the term "sensible stalwarts in his own party" at which I'm having trouble not laughing. Do folks like this even exist? And with all the journalists circled so closely around the throne to protect him from scrutiny there's no way an angry Islamist could get close enough to be seen by his protection detail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a new comer to your blog and have missed what you said about Bush's Iraq war. Saddam was certainly a stabilizing force with Iran and Syria, now gone. I am not a supporter of Obama but they are all screw ups in one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't assume that because someone is opposed to Obama they automatically supported Bush. I can think of very few Bush policies that I support. But he acted presidential, made his decisions and didn't act like a little bitch blaming all his predecessors for the problems he inherited

      Delete
    2. Saddam a stabilizing force? A limited viewpoint, certainly.

      Delete
    3. I, frankly, am glad that Sodom Insane is gone, and if the Iraqis can't pull their act together without us looking over their shoulders, well ain't dat too d@#n bad.

      I admit that I was a dissenter in the First Gulf War. I figured that if we were dealing business as usual with Deng Xiaoping's China when the bloodstains were still all over Beijing's streets, I figured that we could live with a slightly enlarged Iraq (once we might might have made a point that any further moves on the Persian Gulf, and we'd go nuclear, or something like that). As it was, we decided to sacrifice some of our boys for Sykes' and Picot's lines, lost the "teaching moment" to let our people know that history's going to happen no matter what, and, for the duration of the conflict, my junior grade US consular officer's hide was worth 40K to Sodom Insane (I was warned that such might be the case when I was sworn in), and my then seven-year-old son's was worth about 10K to him. Given that he was also subsidizing suicide bombers against the Israelis (payouts to their survivors), I could not shed a tear for him. Given that he was also talking to every bad guy bunch from the Irish Republican Army to the Japanese Red Army Faction and the Moro Liberation Front, I don't get weepy when some murderous thug starves himself to death in Long Kesh (and hiss when someone sings "Kevin Barry" over him) or when the Filipino army or constabulary get a little enthusiastic in questioning a terror suspect in Mindanao.

      As for Qaddafi, the only good thing about him that I can say is that he kept other thuggish groups in line, and he looked as if he might've been the bastard son of either Chico or Harpo Marx. But he couldn't have lasted forever, and he did have Lockerbie and Berlin nightclub blood on his hands.

      Hence, I'm for more of a let's-keep-our-distance policy towards those pathological core Muslim lands.

      Delete
    4. I'd too prefer "a let's-keep-our-distance" approach as regards this further adventure into the snake-pit.

      But to be Historically Fair I don't think all can be laid at the feet of the Obamistas. Recall McCain, Lieberman and Graham (among others) in the runup to Libya. From February and March 2011:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-27/mccain-lieberman-support-creating-a-no-fly-zone-over-libya-1-.html

      http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=b63b7b6f-a466-ba23-dea8-7bc024f54655

      Arkie

      Delete
    5. Well, Arkie, you do have a point.

      At this stage of the game, I regret to say that I'm something of a culturalist when it comes to liberal democracy. I'm not sure the thing can really work save in a culture that has either seriously read the Bible (Old and New Testaments) for quite a while, or has lived in the shadow of a culture that did.

      In some ways, Bush II's heart was in the right place when the 9/11 attacks led him to believe that democratization was the answer to the Arab world's pathologies. Like so many other educated Americans, Georg W. Bush grew up under the shadow of the Democratic Peace thesis, that democratic countries are less likely to war on each other (it goes back to Immanuel Kant's view that republics are more peaceful than monarchies). Unfortunately, we ought to have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that long-standing disbelief in original sin (Yetzer Ra'a, if you're Jewish) is better soil for paranoid tyranny rather than workable limited government.

      Delete
    6. Arkie, You are right. McCain seems always to be pro-intervention. He still seeks the approval of the NY Times crowd. You'd think he would have learned.

      Delete
  4. Yes they will continue to overreach, they have to. The only way they keep in power is to satisfy their base and it is hungry, needing constant feeding and validation. So look for retreat on foreign affairs (in the mistaken belief this will save them from blunders) and expansion of their domestic revenge policies.

    Morocco is the sole country that is between the fundamentalist standing on the Straits of Gibralta, Suez Canal, Gulf of Hormuz, the Red Sea approach, and the Dardenelles. In others words all sea approaches to the Mid East and Mediterranian Basin, this not good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is it incompetence, or does he act by design? If his job, as he sees it, is to bring to humiliation Western Civilization, do not his otherwise incomprehensible actions take on a clear purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he acts by design personally so he is doing quite a good job all things considered. I mean it can't be easy ruining the best country in the world right?

      Delete
    2. The Obama administration reminds me a bit of television's Mr. Bean: someone who's a mixture of incompetence, stupidity, and malevolence.

      Delete
  6. Since there are quite few modern era college prof. types to be enlightened by, in these still United States, and by truth and perstective afforded, uplifting even, I offer this great conservative conclave of fresh air of truth, including the Cato Institute, Adam Smith Institute, etc., speaking on matters fully involved with the current economy with this miserable regime. For the big economic picture, see this lecture, at the Hillsdale series:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_kV82ap5f0&list=UUudqVyQYnmi8NwWfd11Rmvw&index=6

    For conservative knowledgeables, this is a refreshing collegiate trove of up to date discussion on the economic malaise of the above named regime's political mythology, and malaise.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  7. latest word is that the Americans are assisting the French in Mali

    ReplyDelete
  8. Going after Libya was a mistake that will haunt us for years. Damn it, a country's word MUST be good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The way to deal with the Middle East crazies is to frack them. Frack away, Amercia!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is impossible. Obama/Biden told us AQ was on the run and decimated. How can they be taking over entire nations in Africa????
    I mean, the next thing you'll see is Toyota replacing GM as the number 1 car seller.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4311878/Toyota-overtakes-GM-as-worlds-largest-car-manufacturer.html
    (OK, Sarcasm off)

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Frack, baby frack" sounds really good but, the EPA will never allow it.
    It is much too fun to keep the American people under the heel of the Obama admin. than to employ the natural resources we have to free us of Islamic energy.
    Really, talk about a disconnect, a talking out of one side of your mouth then another... Light bulbs, toilets, shower heads, etc. This is all part of the plan.
    Here in my PC area of L.I. we now have to bag our leaves in paper bags which cost about a buck a bag... This, to save our planet... When plastic bags were foisted on us I thought it was to save our planet. Who knew?

    ReplyDelete