Rarely Has an International Crisis Been More Predictable. The naiveté, ignorance and narcissism of Barack Obama coupled with his and other world leaders’ despicable deference to radical Islam has eventuated in creating the Balkans of the 21st Century!

Posted on September 22, 2012

(also: Obama Destabilized the Middle East on Purpose? see below)

September 17, 2012

Rarely Has an International Crisis Been More  Predictable

By Steve  McCann

Rarely  has an international crisis and potential  for a regional conflict been more predicable than what the world is witnessing  in the Middle East and North Africa.  The naiveté, ignorance and narcissism  of Barack Obama coupled with his and other world leaders’ despicable deference  to radical Islam has eventuated in creating the Balkans of the 21st  Century, whose counterpart in 1914 became the tinderbox that enflamed the globe  as World War I; a war whose consequences are still felt to this  day.

Barack  Obama, determined to become the Muslim world’s best friend, has instead  unleashed the dogs of war in the Middle East.  He has actively backed the  overthrow of various governments in the vain and naïve hope that the extreme  radical element of Islam would not step into the resultant leadership vacuum.   He has essentially told Iran, that they are free to develop nuclear weapons and  to meddle in the affairs of Lebanon, Syria and whatever country they choose with  no consequences.  He has given Hamas and the Palestinian Authority a green  light to confront Israel, as U.S. policy is now to browbeat and intimidate the  Israelis to accept any agreement while demanding their acquiescence to Iranian  nuclear capability.  He has willfully created a power and influence void  into which Russia has now stepped.

Barack  Obama has signaled, by his numerous apologies and adolescent groveling, that the  United States is no longer engaged and is willing to be deferential to all the  nations of the region regardless of their potential threat to America or the  West, including Israel now essentially isolated and alone.

In  his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama shamelessly blamed the West for all the problems  with Islam and never once used the words; terrorism, terrorist, war on terror or  radical Islam.  Earlier in the same year he met secretly with the Muslim  Brotherhood, the progenitor of Hamas and Al Qaeda, thus legitimizing them with a  wink and a nod.

Once  the riots in 2011 began in Egypt and other North African countries, regardless  of what may have triggered them, the Islamists knew they had nothing to fear  from the United States as the American president and his administration had made  no meaningful overtures to the true democratic elements in those countries that  were governed by dictatorial rulers friendly to the interests of the United  States.  Obama chose instead to appeal to the radical element believing  that by the sheer force of his personality and persuasion the Islamists would  change their spots.

While  playing the game with Washington, the radicals knew if they could get the  population into the streets they could exacerbate the situation to their  advantage.  Today in Egypt what began as student and middle class demonstrations  in the spring of 2011 has evolved into a government dominated by the Muslim  Brotherhood.

With  Obama’s determination to rid Libya of Muammar Gaddafi, without any potential  moderate leadership waiting in the wings, he has provided a potential sanctuary  for Al Qaeda and unleashed ancient tribal animosity.

Not  only have the most radical elements of Islam now found homes other than in the  mountains and caves of Afghanistan, Israel is surrounded by: Lebanon and  Hezb’allah, Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria dominated by the Iranian  Islamists.  All whose sole mission in life is to destroy Israel, impose sharia  law throughout the region, and re-institute the old Muslim Caliphate.   Their motivation is based on religious fanaticism, the most dangerous driver of  human behavior.

To  anyone who paid attention to this region and the virulent spread of radical  Islam, their infiltration into Europe and the attacks on the United States, this  potential outcome was self-evident.  Barack Obama and other leaders in the  West refused to believe the worst could happen, a belief that still motivates  the American president.  This was the same mindset which permeated the  psyche of Neville Chamberlain and other politicians in Western Europe in the  1930’s, as they refused to believe the Nazis were who they said they  were.

Had  Obama bothered to study history, he would have also realized that the overthrow  of governments in nations without a long-term tradition of democracy has  resulted a prolonged periods of upheaval and violence.  That scenario has  been repeated throughout the twentieth century from the initial Russian  Revolution in 1917, which eventuated in the communist takeover and the death of  untold millions throughout the world, to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which  opened the door to the current despotic theocracy in Iran, the modern day  wellhead of today’s radical Islamic movement.

Far  more than those European leaders in the 1930’s who were guilty only of naiveté,  the ego and narcissism of a national leader imbued with a messianic mindset  determined to change his country and the world is a threat in a dangerous and  unstable world.  In Barack Obama the people of the United States elected as  president, and by default the leader of the free world, such a person.

He  has revealed this mindset by his inability to accept any responsibility during  the entire term of his presidency for the outcome of his policies and actions  either domestic or foreign.  This chronic character flaw has eventuated in  Obama’s latest obeisance to the radical Islamists.  He has unleashed the police  power of the state on the producer of a film conveniently and falsely blamed for the violence in  the Muslim world, as if this obscure person had committed a crime for exercising  his free speech rights.  All this in an attempt to place blame elsewhere  and placate a mob who will be further emboldened by this contemptible sign of  weakness.  That this is reminiscent of those actions expected in a nation  controlled by despots is immaterial, as Barack Obama has, in his mind, a destiny  to fulfill.

There  will be a violent conflict in the Middle East.  It is only a matter of  time.  The only question that remains is whether it will spread beyond the  confines of the region.  When the history of these times is written, Barack  Obama will have heaped upon his shoulders a lion’s share of the responsibility  for the death and destruction certain to occur.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/rarely_has_an_international_crisis_been_more_predictable.html#ixzz27BkfhH5g


September 16, 2012

Obama Destabilized the Middle East on Purpose

By Karin  McQuillan

On  Fox News Wednesday night, both Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were full of  self-congratulatory comments about how they had easily seen the Muslim  Brotherhood problem with the “Arab Spring,” and how could Obama have failed to  see it?  Duh.  Of course, our State Department and White House knew  that the Muslim Brotherhood  would be taking over Egypt.  It was obvious to  any reasonably informed ordinary citizen.

The  same debate we’ve seen over Obama’s destruction of the American economy has  already begun over his Middle East policy.  Did Obama hand Egypt  over to  jihadis, and is he giving a green light to nuclear Iran, because of incompetence  or his leftist ideology?

John  Hinderacker over at Powerlineblog.com  writes:

You  could call his actions in the region incoherent, except that it’s worse than  that, especially if you take into account his hostility toward Israel. If a  consistent principle can be deduced, it is that Obama wants to avoid doing  anything that might advance U.S. interests. Maybe that’s the answer, or maybe he  just doesn’t care enough to formulate a real policy.  Be that as it may,  one thing is clear: but for Obama’s feckless participation in the overthrow of  Egypt’s and Libya’s governments, yesterday’s events would not have  happened.

The  answer, of course, is both incompetence and ideology.  Muddle-headed  ideologues of the left, such as our president, want America to be brought down  to size.  They truly believe that violent jihadi hate-groups can be tamed  by appeasement, because the evil parties are Israel and America.  So Obama  helps depose Mubarak and Gaddafi, knowing they will be replaced by Islamic  supremacists.  He tells Israel they are on their own, we didn’t really mean  it about being allies.  He blocks attempts to prevent a nuclear Iran, even  by economic sanctions, because he doesn’t like American shows of force and  thinks we can live with a nuclear Iran.  We lived with a nuclear Soviet  Union, didn’t we?  Are we against Arabs, that we think they shouldn’t have  nuclear weapons, too?  It sounds like a joke, but it  isn’t.

Incompetence  was also in full force this 9/11.  The attacks in Egypt and Libya were  preventable.  Why weren’t our embassies and consulates in the Middle East  properly protected?  Why are fifty Marines sent in after the fact?   Why didn’t we have intelligence in advance?  When the mob was gathering  outside the Cairo embassy, the frightened staff issued an apology.  What is  wrong with our diplomatic corps if that was their response?  Clinton should  have gotten on the phone to the Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi and explained  to him what would happen if he didn’t protect our embassy.  The rent-a-riot, inflamed  purposefully by publicizing an obscure anti-Mohammed video, should have been  stopped before they got anywhere close to our embassy.

When  the embassy did issue their pathetic attempt at appeasement, and reissue it  after our flag was torn down, Obama should have made a strong statement  immediately, one that indicated that there are repercussions for attacking  America.  Instead, he allowed the apology to stand (for nine hours) until  Romney condemned it.  Desecrations of our flag didn’t get the president’s  attention, but electoral politics did.

Obama’s  incompetence is an outgrowth of a broadly based Democrat ideology that wants us  to believe that the war on terror was a stupid Bush idea.  They accuse  Republicans of exaggerating the jihadi threat.  They smear any public  figure who is concerned about the global Islamist war with the label  “Islamophobe.”

Obama,  along with many liberal Democrats, believes that American strength is  immoral.  We shouldn’t impose our views on other nations.  So when the  Muslim Brotherhood made its move last year, using the “Facebook revolution” as  cover (and a very transparent cover it was), we abandoned Mubarak and told the  Egyptian military to stand aside.  We purposefully let the Middle East’s  oldest terror organization take over the Middle East’s most populous  country.

The  Muslim Brotherhood is considered the father  of the jihadi movement.  It was adopted by Adolf Hitler under the Third  Reich and grew from a languishing 10,000 members to a million strong by the end  of World War II — Hitler’s  permanent legacy for world destruction.  Yet our president and State  Department believe in embracing the Brothers as modernizing  moderates.

The  Brothers started the  modern jihadi movement, complete with a genocidal  program against Jews. In the words of Matthias  Kuntzel, “[t]he significance of the Brotherhood to Islamism is comparable to  that of the Bolshevik Party to communism: It was and remains to this day the  ideological reference point and organizational core for all later Islamist  groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.”

Mubarak  was the reason there have been no attacks by Arab states on Israel for thirty  years.  The 1979 Camp David accords neutralized Egypt as a player in the  Arab war against Israel.  To protect his own life and power, Mubarak kept  the Muslim Brothers of Egypt under control.  In return, Egypt has been  receiving a billion and a half dollars a year — payoff money  from the United States.  Egypt didn’t agree to a friendly peace, and it  wasn’t a democracy, but in terms of Middle East geopolitics, supporting Mubarak  was a critical success factor.

Obama  and Hillary threw all that away with their embrace of the Arab Spring.  It  could have gone differently.  We could have spoken out in support of  Mubarak, showing the world that we are trustworthy allies.  Instead, we  abandoned a crucial ally when the mob howled.  We could have told the  Egyptian military that they had better make sure the Muslim Brothers don’t take  over the country.  Instead, we told them to step  aside and usher the Brothers into power.

Hillary’s  State Department proclaimed that the Muslim Brothers had become moderates.   Anyone having a flashback to the Carter era, when all the liberals knew that the  Ayatollah Khomeini would be a partner for peace?

The  Obama Doctrine on the Middle East was hinted at in the president’s 2009 Cairo  speech, during a Middle East tour in which Obama did not visit Israel.   Obama apologized for our war on terror.  “The fear and anger” after  9/11 “led us to act contrary to our ideals,” he told the Egyptian crowd.   In a speech in France, Obama declared that America must make deep cuts in our  nuclear arsenal, because otherwise we don’t have “the moral authority to say to  Iran, don’t develop a nuclear weapon.”

President  Obama fought Congress tooth and nail on imposing economic sanctions against Iran  this year — already too little, too late.  According to vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, the  White House did everything they could to stop Congress from requiring sanctions,  and then they used the waiver provision to gut them.  There is no benign  explanation for this.  Left-wing anti-colonialists — and our president is  one — think Iran will use its nuclear weapons responsibly.

One  of the most chilling visuals in 2016:  Obama’s America is a map of the world’s nuclear arsenals.  Obama  has already cut our nuclear warhead arsenal from 5,000 to 1,500 (in an “arms  treaty” that allowed Russia to increase its arsenal).  He has asked the  Pentagon to report to him on reducing our nuclear warheads to 300.  That’s  about the same number as France.  Pakistan has 110 nuclear weapons.   Obama, it seems, believes in equality in national defense, as well as in class  warfare.

In  July, five conservative congressmen, including Michele Bachmann, expressed alarm  over evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in placing  operatives in key positions throughout the Obama administration.  In  Bachman’s words, State Department polices “appear to be a result of influence  operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim  Brotherhood.”  Instead of backing up Bachmann, our Republican  leadership joined in Democrat attacks on her.

The policies  Bachmann listed are not trivial.  The Obama/Clinton team defied a  congressional resolution to hold up our 1.5 billion dollars to Egypt until we  knew they were still allies.  Paying off Mubarak made sense.  Handing  billions to a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt, not so much.  Do you think Egyptian  President Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, would have allowed a mob to  attack our embassy if these funds were in play?

Congressman  Bachman is concerned,  based on Frank Gaffney’s analysis,  that our Department of Homeland  Security may have eight Muslim Brotherhood members in key advisory roles,  including the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)’s Working Group, which is  responsible for training homeland security agents.  The CVE will be using  federal Homeland Security funds to funnel money to Muslim Brotherhood  organizations in the United States, in the name of a “community-oriented  policing approach.”  The Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil  Liberties has established the policy of protecting “terrorism-precursor  activities” as “cultural behaviors.”

Congressman  Bachmann questioned why the DHS official lexicon equates jihadi extremists with  “Christian patriots” and “Constitutionlists.”  She asked about Huma  Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser at State, who formerly worked for a  Brotherhood organization, founded and funded by Abdullah Naseef, who also  finances al-Qaeda.  There is no question that Abedin helps Clinton  formulate U.S. Middle East policy.

The  sorry list goes on and on.  (For more details, see Frank  Gaffney’s “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama  Administration.”)

The  point here is not only that the Muslim Brotherhood is influencing American  foreign policy.  The arrow points in both directions: the Obama/Clinton  policy of tolerating and even promoting the power of the Muslim Brotherhood in  Egypt is the same policy that promotes their front groups in America.  It  is the liberal idiocy that our enemies are friends, and our friends  enemies.

Obama  has signaled clearly and repeatedly that America no longer has Israel’s  back.  He could not have done anything more effective to sabotage  negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians than his public pressure on  Israel to declare unilaterally they will withdraw to their 1948 borders.   Obama bypassed congressional limits on aid to the Palestinian Authority after  their alliance with Hamas, putting $200 million into the hands of one of the  most vicious and dangerous terror groups in the Middle East.  And he has  signaled to the Iranians that Israel is on its own.  Then there are the  personal but well-publicized snubs to the Israeli prime minister, and the open  mike revelations of Obama’s contempt and dislike for Bibi.  Obama has time  to go on the Letterman show in New York next week, but he refuses to meet with  Netanyahu, as the go/no go decision on bombing Iran stares  Israel in the face.

Abandoning  Israel invites war.  But in Obama’s mind, he is promoting fairness.   He thinks Israel is the problem.  He thinks that harming Israel will win  America friends among Arabs.  He thinks he is pressuring the Israelis to  stop being bad guys.

Obama  is purposefully harming American interests, but he thinks it will turn out  okay.  He attacks the American economy and free-enterprise system, and he  thinks it will turn out okay.  He attacks our energy industry, and he  thinks it will turn out okay.  He attacks the rule of law and our  Constitution, and he thinks it will turn out okay.  He undermines the  hard-won stability of Egypt and thinks it will turn out okay.  We have a  president who thinks American national security interests, power, and prosperity  are the problem.  Then, when it’s a broken mess, he’s surprised, and he  asks for more time to do more of the same.  Obama is the  problem.

The  Middle East is a harsh taskmaster.  It is no place for an aging schoolboy  leftist like our president.  In the real world, stupid ideas such as the  one dominant in Obama’s administration, that jihadis really want peace — such  ideas have very bloody consequences.  The tragic deaths of our diplomats in  Libya are only the beginning.  Iran looms over us  all.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/obama_destabilized_the_middle_east_on_purpose.html#ixzz27BmouoN8

Posted in: Uncategorized