No one man or administration can be blamed for the ongoing Middle East crisis. It’s rooted in ancient history and will never be erased completely. But that doesn’t mean that American policy can’t have an effect on those festering resentments and hatreds. We can help keep them under control or we can create a situation where they break into the open.
George Bush, when he changed tactics and approved the surge, largely pacified Iraq. He handed over to Barack Obama a country that had engaged in free elections and had a fledgling government. The presence of American troops helped keep the peace.
Obama, from the start, had an ideological contempt for any American involvement militarily in the area. That ideology also led him to apologize for America’s past actions in the region and fooled him into believing he could make all things right with soothing speeches and total pullout of the military. That’s what he did in Iraq, although his top generals told him it was a mistake and would be the opening that the terrorists needed.
What we are currently facing in that region, via ISIS, is the direct result of President Obama’s disengagement policy. It emboldened those who seek to set up an Islamic caliphate and dictate Sharia law. It may be the only occasion where this president has spurred “growth”:
As ISIS set up its Islamic state and the beheadings began, our president seemed more concerned about his next golf outing than dealing with the increasing instability. Many were wondering what it would take to get his full attention:
So he decided to give another speech. The incentive for that speech might have had political undertones:
As many have commented since, and as I noted a few days ago, one of the most bewildering statements in his speech came near the beginning when he claimed that the Islamists and their Islamic State weren’t really Muslim at all. That was news to the rest of the world:
He then backpedaled on his own stated policy toward the Syrian rebels. Previously, he said they weren’t a valid fighting force to support. Now, all of a sudden, they were:
Further, he continued to try to convince Americans that ISIS is merely a regional threat and that we shouldn’t worry about what they might do here. After all, we have a very secure border, right?
Obama’s approval numbers are about what Bush’s were at the low ebb of his presidency, but if you don’t know that, there may be a reason:
But don’t let anyone tell you the news media is biased. Of course not. Or could our president’s friends in the media be the main reason his numbers haven’t tanked completely? How long can they prop him up?