mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
He Didn't Start The Fire
The World Ignites on Obama's Watch

As Islamist jihadis like Boko Haram murder and kidnap their way across Nigeria and Mali in pursuit of what they somehow convince themselves is a noble purpose, as Iraq and Syria writhe in the flames of an insurgency gone into hyperdrive, as the Taliban licks its chops over the future of Afghanistan, and as the smoke rises over Karachi’s airport, Washington is still trying to pretend that the global war on terror is a thing of the past.

But the jihadis apparently aren’t getting the memos and the position papers. The Guardian:

Senior militants from al-Qaida‘s central command have released a video calling on Muslims in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir to follow the example of “brothers” in Syria and Iraq and wage a violent jihad against Indian authorities.

The video, which cites the “new Afghanistan being created in Syria” as inspiration, is the first to specifically target Kashmir.

Entitled “War should continue, message to the Muslims of Kashmir”, the video was uploaded in recent days to a website where statements by other leaders of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been released in the past.

We may not want to be fighting this war, but it is clearer every day that a significant and growing number of people with greater and greater access to money and weapons have launched a war against everyone who doesn’t think stoning adulteresses and hanging homosexuals is God’s will. While under both Bush and Obama the non-stoning world scored some significant victories over these misguided fanatics, both Presidents made policy missteps that contributed to a worsening problem.

We shouldn’t judge either of them too harshly; this is a hard problem and no President of the United States has ever faced anything quite like it. We still don’t know how the threat will develop and what future plot twists we’ll encounter, but the first step toward making progress is to come to terms with the reality of the danger we face. The global jihadi movement has many faces and groups, and its various elements don’t always cooperate with each other any more than communist and fascist movements did. Nevertheless, it is a real and growing threat, and the struggle to protect ourselves and our allies (whom we’ll need more than ever as the danger grows) is going to be a long and hard one.

To say this is not to say that George W. Bush got things right (in many important ways, he didn’t), but there is little doubt that the U.S. and our allies are less secure today than we were on January 20, 2009, when President Obama was sworn in. It isn’t all his fault and he has had some real successes as well as failures along the way, but one can only hope that the folks inside the White House and in the President’s inner circle have the honesty and clarity of mind to acknowledge that American foreign policy isn’t going very well right now—not in Afghanistan, not in the Middle East, not in North Africa, not in the Russian borderlands, not where China seeks to extend its reach.

The world has caught fire on President Obama’s watch, and while he wasn’t the arsonist who lit the match, he’s the man in charge of putting the conflagration out. The world, and the American voters, will be watching to see how he responds.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Curious Mayhem

    Obama is the poseur who put on the fireman’s hat for a while to fool the rubes. Then he slipped back into what he does best, play golf and campaign.

    And stop with the Bush apologetics. The world will be a significantly less safe, less free, and less prosperous place when this clown leaves office in 2017. From the start, he was the world-historical mistake of a self-absorbed generation doped up on its own self-righteousness.

    • MLN

      An odd perspective since when Bush was about to leave office, we had accumulated trillions in debt from his wars, the housing bubble had burst, and the financial markets were in free-fall. And now? Most likely Obama will find a diplomatic solution to the Shiite-Sunni thing. Bush and his war monger cronies never could understand what lasting solutions look like.

      • Mark Hamilton

        “Most likely Obama will find a diplomatic solution to the Shiite-Sunni thing.”

        Right. It’s only 1400 years old. Maybe he can wrap up the Israeli-Palestinian issue over cocktails too. Another speech ought to do it.

        • CKAinRedStateUSA

          Another speech on “climate change,” or “income inequality,” or “war on women,” or some even less relevant to the global terrorist crisis.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        hahahaha, you are insane…
        -Obama has doubled the deficit all by himself.
        -The housing bubble was because of Democrats “Frank and Dodd” messing with social issues.
        -The market is being driven by Quanatative Easing (printing money) Obama’s policies have set the middle east into a tail spin.

        • Curious Mayhem

          Yep. Iraq was calming down and continued to calm down until 2011, when the US left and the Syrian civil war started. The Bush “surge” made one major error, though: arming various sides that had never been armed in that way before: an unstable situation stabilized only because the US was still there.

          The Sunni-Shia conflict won’t end unless (a) an outside force intervenes decisively and brutally, or (b) they exhaust themselves with unimaginable bloodletting. Over here, the media will just lose interest and stop reporting it.

          And yes, the deficits of the Bush years now look like an unattainable pipe dream of fiscal rectitude.

      • bubbaleroysmith

        An odd perspective since the peaceful Iraq that Obama inherited is about to fall into the hands of the homophobic, despotic Sharia-loving maniacs. Biting your friends hands and appeasing enemies does not work in the real world. Obama’s leadership or lack thereof has made the world a much more dangerous place. Leaders actually lead. Those who do not, blame others for their own shortfalls.

        • Curious Mayhem

          Obama is like that kid in high school who spurned all his real friends while desperately trying to hang out with unsavory tough types who despise him.

      • YesWeCan3


    • Falcoln269

      Nero fiddled, Obama golfs.

      • Curious Mayhem

        Too bad for Nero. No one will ever know how to say “fore!” in Latin.

  • lhfry

    It is amusing to see Kerry and others advocating a policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Wasn’t that the cold war policy that prompted Obama to go around apologizing for our supposed past misdeeds?

    • gabrielsyme

      The enemy of my enemy is often enough my friend. The problem isn’t that Kerry et al are saying it; the problem is that they aren’t getting it right, and they’re ineffective even when they’ve made the right strategic evaluation.

      The Muslim Brotherhood was never the enemy of the Salafist thugs. Assad always was. Yet Obama’s brilliant strategy was to support the MB and work to undermine Assad. And we’re surprised that jihadists are more powerful than ever?

  • Arkeygeezer

    “The world has caught fire on President Obama’s watch, and while he wasn’t the arsonist who lit the match, he’s the man in charge of putting the conflagration out”

    Obama lit the match in Cairo in 2009; he nourished the flame with his outreach to Moslems siding with the Shea against the Suni; but he can’t extinguish the fire because nobody, Allies or Americans, do not trust him. He is not a man of his word and we are living with the consequences.

    • Loader2000

      The Muslim world doesn’t trust any american president, not just Obama. ‘Trust’ has nothing to do with it. Both the conflagrations in Egypt and Libya would have happened regardless of anything an American president did, especially considering the active involvement of Italy and France in Libya. Syria is the only theater where we could have made a difference, maybe, and that is a big maybe. Guns and monetary support (actual, not promised) are the only thing that really makes a difference in these fights and the bottom line is that we should have been more strongly supporting moderate rebel groups in Syria all along.

      • Arkeygeezer

        I agree that the Muslim World doesn’t trust any american president, but to provide any leadership at all, the President must have the trust of the American People and our allies. President Obama does not have this trust.

      • bubbaleroysmith

        We made a difference in Iraq through the tremendous work and sacrifice of our military. Obama has squandered it. This is the greatest tragedy of all.

        Yes, evil exists. If we are not willing to stand up to it or we waver when we should stand tall, our enemies become emboldened. To Arkeygeezer’s point, Obama has shown himself to be unreliable to allies and prone to blinking when people cross his red lines. Both are a recipe for disaster.

      • Corlyss

        “Both the conflagrations in Egypt and Libya would have happened regardless of anything an American president did,”

        Kaplan predicted as much 13 years ago, based on 1) the population profile of mid-East nations (some nations like Iran then had 50% people under 30), and 2) the mass migrations from country to cities throughout the region. Under the circumstances, it was going to happen regardless of who was president in America. The under 30 crowd is notoriously restless in most periods of history and rural populations moving into cities puts severe stress on any government, esp. inept governments. Having a weak and clueless dope for a president just makes matters a whole lot worse.

    • Curious Mayhem

      The speech in Cairo was just Obama’s attempt at a wishful-thinking approach to the Middle East. Bush had “democratic transformation,” although he at least recognized that such values and such a path have violent enemies. Too much wishful thinking.

  • S.C. Schwarz

    Ever since Vietnam liberals have believed that American belligerence was the key problem. Now, at last, they have a president who agrees with them and we see the consequences of American withdrawal. In the Middle East, in eastern Europe, and around the South China Sea we can see the future the liberals have chosen for us. I’m afraid we had better get used to it.

    • Historybuff

      Excellent commentary… and when you write,

      “I’m afraid we had better get used to it.”

      You are spot on.

    • Corlyss


  • RTO Dude

    If we can’t do better than articles like this I’m going to look for insights somewhere else.

    • Loader2000

      This is a blog, not the wall street journal. I think both WRM and Berger’s larger essays on Religion and foreign policy are excellent. If you are looking for something more in depth, you should read those. On the other had, if you are angry (like many other commentators) because WRM and other authors don’t imitate Sean Hannity and blame every bad thing that every happened on President Obama, than, yeah, you should probably get your information from a right wing blog like Little Green Footballs.

      • RTO Dude

        I want to see explanation, some discussion of deeper causal relationships. I’d like to see moral analysis too.

        Don’t get me wrong, I am grumpy – I’ve been pig wrestling too much with partisans. And I do enjoy articles like Berger’s War on Error etc.

        But I’m talking about this one here, now.

    • Jason Mayo

      Dexter Filkins outlines the situation nicely in the New Yorker…, you can get that on Real clear Politics.

      • RTO Dude

        Filkins’ article was excellent.

  • Andrew Allison

    He’s been the man in charge for the past six years, and that makes him responsible for the escalation of conflict.

    • MLN

      Right, The president of the United States is responsible for Shiite-Sunni wars, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or whatever else is happening in the world? Nonsense.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        He’s responsible for mishandeling the management of this.

        • mikekelley10

          This is the biggest success for the Democrat Party since they gave away Vietnam. Watch for Afghanistan to follow. Luckily for the lefties, though, the media will ignore it all.

      • Historybuff

        obama is responsible for reducing America’s international prestige… and for reducing America’s respect as a major opponent of murderous and genocidal societies.

        Red lines with tank tracks all over them… are laughed at by most of the violent world.

        • Corlyss

          “obama is responsible for reducing America’s international prestige”
          I don’t give a rat’s behind about America’s prestige among non-Americans, who would take a US Visa in a heart. I do care about being feared because among nations, that’s worth a great deal more than being loved or having prestige. Nations are not going to do things against their own self-interest because they love another nation or respect it. They will because they fear.

      • fedupMan

        Under Obama the following countries have become a mess b/c of HIS decisions:
        Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.
        Iran probably has the bomb and will use it to wipe out Israel, they said so. If you think the clouds will stay over there you are being naive.
        More US military have died in Afghanistan by far, than under Bush. O changed the rules of engagement so our men have to ask for permission to fire back even if our men are bleeding. Many times they are NOT allowed to fire back and they have to run/leave the area and not even fire a shot in defense.
        The Crimea area is in turmoil to say the least.
        Counties all over the globe have lost respect for USA and are making deals with our enemies.
        The bad guys are running rampant, China is taking islands that belong to other nations in the China sea.
        All of this chaos happened under O.

        • YesWeCan3

          America is perceived as weak because it is lead by weak politicians.

          • fedupMan

            Good point. I shall use it myself.

          • YesWeCan3

            Sadly facts show how we are dying.

        • Curious Mayhem

          Notice how much reporting has gone into telling Americans that more US soldiers died in Afghanistan in five years under Obama than in seven years under Bush: not much.

      • YesWeCan3

        No he is not, he is responsible for the silly appeasement program he started which undermined the authoritarian rulers and inflamed the radical by emboldening them.
        Watch, he will continue to screw up, just as sending 275 of our soldiers into a mess he helped create will fail.

      • Curious Mayhem

        Of course he’s responsible for the latest developments, in as far as American policy (or lack of policy) affects them. He is president, after all — or is that all just a hoax, and the reality is that he’s Golfer-in-Chief?

        Obama did insist on leaving Iraq in 2011 without even a small US presence. And, more to the point, he refused to do anything, or anything early enough, about the Syrian civil war. A wise policy in 2011 would have had a real chance of heading off the arrival of the foreign jihadists to that conflict. Many, including some of his own advisers, and authors here on TAI, did recommend such a course.

  • stefanstackhouse

    I feel sorry for the innocent victims who get caught up in all of this. However, this needs to be said: things not to our liking that may happen in every dusty backwater of the world are not actually “a matter of vital national security” for the US. Our natural grand strategy is defense in depth offshore, given our very favorable geographic situation. We need a strong navy and air force, a very modest army, and friends among the major islands of the Pacific and Atlantic. Beyond that, and in particular beyond the shores of the Eurasian and African mainlands, what goes on is mainly a matter of global, or at least regional, multi-lateral responsibility rather than being any sort of burden that the US alone should shoulder. For too long we have been trying to solve all the worlds problems, which we have mostly and mistakenly defined as requiring the perpetual preservation of artificial boundary lines drawn on maps a half century or century ago by white men who did not even live – or indeed, had never even seen – the territories in question, along with the preservation in power of governing elites that are cooperative with what we think is necessary for the promotion of our own neo-imperialist geopolitical games, no matter how harmful said governments might be to their own people. Enough!

    • 1630

      9/11 put an end to the notion of defense in depth behind the great barrier of the oceans. It’s a different world now.

      The calculus that the country has to examine today is whether it is better to assist Iraq in a fight against the absolute worst humanity has to offer, or whether it is better to wait and hope that ISIS doesn’t acquire the trappings and weaponry of a state. I don’t think the traditional concept of deterrence has much validity here.

      I think it’s clearly in the national security interests of the US that Iraq is neither defeated by jihadists nor becomes an Iranian vassal.

      • stefanstackhouse

        I realize that it isn’t the 19th century any more, and oceans plus a strong navy are no longer enough to assure our national security. Nevertheless, these are still the starting point, then we adapt and build from there.

        There are those saying that because the ISIS people just MIGHT launch some sort of attack against us, somehow and some day, therefore we must go in with guns blazing and take them out. You know, there may not be a nation in the world where there isn’t somebody that might some day do something harmful against some American somewhere. We simply can’t eliminate or prevent all of these potential or theoretical threats, and any attempt to do so will only result in our being so hated that we will actually birth two or more potential terrorists for every one we kill. Really counterproductive at best, and more accurately, really stupid.

        When real states develop the trappings and weaponry of a serious state, and when they start being a serious and credible threat against us, then is the time to start talking about being prepared to use our military if the situation becomes dire enough.

        Iraq – and indeed, the entire Middle East and beyond – is a mess, it always has been a mess, and it always will be a mess. There will be people there believing things and doing things we don’t approve of. Too bad. We’ve tried to “fix” it, and discovered that we can’t really fix it, only change it from one mess to another. Haven’t we learned our lesson by now?

        • 1630

          This isn’t a case of the precautionary principle where we’re dealing with a hypothetical threat. Al Qaeda and its affiliates have attacked us in the homeland, and will do so again if given the opportunity.

          It’s not a question of stopping people that do things that we disapprove of…it’s a question of self defense. It is better in my opinion to do so now while they are in their formative days, than later when they have a state.

          I was in Iraq during the invasion in 2003, and there again at the final withdrawal of US forces in 2011 (and for the next year). I’ve seen first hand what AQI and now ISIS do. They cannot be allowed to win. It would be a catastrophe…not just for the people of Iraq who fear and despise ISIS, but for the US as well. But, I don’t think you have to worry. The president has no intention of doing anything meaningful.

    • large

      A couple of things . .

      Those who would cut off your head to convert you to Islam are already here. Driving Taxi cabs, Managing EZ Swipes, Motels and working in call centers. Probably just awaiting their call.

      Secondly, If we are not the world’s Policeman, somebody else will be policing us . . Russia, China, India? . . Take your pick . .

      • stefanstackhouse

        There are also native-born people who would do me harm. We call them “criminals”. We have a way to deal with such people. We call it a “police force” and a “judicial system”. The fact that a criminal is a Muslim and/or comes from another country does not change the fact that they are a criminal. If we feel that there is too much danger from too many criminals or potential criminals in this country, there is an obvious solution: beef up the police forces and improve the judicial systems. Going into Iraq with guns blazing is not an obvious solution, but rather a stupid non-solution.

        There is also the question: why were those people interested in putting some distance between my head and the rest of my body allowed into this country in the first place? I am actually sympathetic with the desires of many responsible, talented, and hard-working peoples from around the world to make the US their home, and would like to make it possible for many of them to come and live here. That doesn’t mean that we just open the door wide open and fail to do some basic background investigations before allowing them in. It may be distasteful and run against our national ideology, but as a practical matter we may have to accept the fact that peoples from certain parts of the world will need more extensive vetting than others.

        The world doesn’t have and never has had a policeman. What it has had and does have are sovereign nations, each defending their own national security within their own spheres of interest. It is when nations stop being content with defending themselves within their own spheres and start intervening in other places that the trouble starts. Far from being the world’s “policeman”, many people around the world are seeing the US as being more the world’s “troublemaker”, and there is some validity in that perception.

        • large

          Quoting: “The world doesn’t have and never has had a policeman.”

          Yes it does and yes it has . . You, obviously are not a student of world history. Going back a few millennia, there’s always been one (or more) countries who kept a lid on world disorder as a method of commerce, if for no other reason. That was why a Navy was so important, and a strong Navy usually meant that you went where you wanted and protected the good from the bad. Spain, France, Britain, and then the USA. all have at one time or another been looked upon as the World’s Policeman or protector. And when others were the “protectors” generally, that country benefitted economically to a great degree, and the countries that were “protected” were submissive to that one protectorate . .

          Now you can call it anything you like, but if one country and it’s Navy calls the shots, I’d have to refer to that country as being “The Policeman” . . Currently, (and since Teddy’s “White Fleet”) we’re pretty much “IT” . . . Although stupidly, we don’t get renumerated or paid for it as the countries used to . .

          • stefanstackhouse

            Yes, I am familiar with world history, enough to know that things were far from being totally peaceful during “Pax Britannica” or any other era supposedly controlled by a supposed “world policeman”. It hasn’t been all that peaceful while we’ve been “IT”, either. People actually don’t get along all that well, especially people different from one’s own group but living nearby. The world is a tumultuous place, and always has been.

          • large

            Put it this way . . Had there not been an interested power during many times, it would have been a hellova lot worse. Take Piracy on the open seas over the years, right up to today . . the Country with the largest and most efficient Navy usually acted as the “New deputy in town” whenever pirates became a problem to anyone . . (“You could be next”, Y’kno)

            And those same conditions have led India and China to begin developing a Blue Water Navy to protect their commerce. The addition of those two Navies cut Somalian Piracy in half in the last two or so years . . Our Navy alone couldn’t be in all places at all times and response suffered . .

            And humans will always be human . . Peace on Earth is a great idea, but to have it you’d have to kill all the humans, then kill all the rest of the predators . . Leaving a world population that would screw itself away from the dinner table in a hundred years . .

        • EllenO

          Oh you embarrass yourself. Go and look up Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana – even wiki will do.

  • john

    “We shouldn’t judge either of them too
    harshly; this is a hard problem and no President of the United States
    has ever faced anything quite like it.”

    Doesn’t Iraq eerily resemble Vietnam and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Is not the current “the coming Muslim wars spell doom crowd” sounding like the hawks predictions of “Communism will cascade through Asia now” after the fall of Saigon? Shouldn’t there be extreme suspicion of any prediction about Iraq and the Middle East three months from now, much less three years from now?

    Just asking.

    • MLN

      Good point.

    • large

      The difference is this . . . Islamic Radicalism is spreading across Africa, through the Middle East unchecked. No one has done anything to check it, other than print a sign to give 276 girls back . . Anybody seen those girls lately? matter of fact over 200 more have been kidnapped since all the press and Moochele’s pleas . . The ISIS in/from Syria’s civil war has now spread into Shiite Iraq, and soon the radicals in Yemen will come to assist . . This is no longer a “Local protest brought on by a Video” . .

  • MLN

    “The World Ignites on Obama’s Watch”

    We have such a short collective memory. Like the world wasn’t ignited during the Iraq-Iran war? or the first US-Iraq war, or the second US-Iraq war. Or the Kurdistan no-fly zone. Or Bosnian war. Or even 9/11….

    • moderate Guy

      Well, no it was not.

    • Historybuff

      YOU have a short collective memory. You are comparing a couple of decades to a couple of years.

      If you think recent world events are comparable to any other time since the end of the Cold War… then you have been knapping. Just like obama’s National Security Council.

  • bucky

    This under the watch of the President who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his “potential”.

    So much for potential…….

    • honestynow

      I don’t think Biden hates us though.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    I can predict with near accuracy that Obama’s response will be three fold:
    #1- Vote “present”.
    #2- Insult everyone who doesn’t buy into AGW.
    #3- Go golfing.

    • Maccabeus

      You forgot to add, “Blame Bush.”

      • moderate Guy

        And ban “discrimination” based on sexual preferences in US military.

  • Maccabeus

    Well, right now he’s at a fundraiser in CA talking about climate control and then he’s going golfing. In the meantime, more Iraqi cities are falling to ISIS and another 1700 people were executed by them. Hello? If this isn’t a wake up call for Obama Inc. I don’t know what is.

    • Historybuff

      Frankly… I don’t believe obama really cares. obama is in it for the megalomania satisfaction.

      obama is the Big Shot now.

      • moderate Guy

        In a small pond even he can be a Big Fish.

  • beelza

    Obama is deliberately allowing an incremental invasion of this country all along the Southwestern borders. And Putin loves it. Russia invades Ukraine with ‘volunteer soldiers’ USA gets invaded with illegal aliens-they both work by different means to the same end. How this government allows the incremental dismantling of this once great nation is astounding. Our business leaders are complicit, generals and admirals also. Btw the way, ISIS in Iraq will cause global oil supply shock and know who will benefit the most, benefit in astounding way … yep Putin will. Putin invading Ukraine, opening recruiting nations to drop America’s ‘petro-dollar,’ combined with America being invaded via the Southwest and of course ISIS. But hey, all really just coincidence, Vladi loves coincidence.

    • Dan Kimble

      excellent observations

  • Historybuff

    “The world has caught fire on President Obama’s watch… he’s the man in charge of putting the conflagration out. The world, and the American voters, will be watching to see how he responds.”

    It will be a long, long watch. Many will die, and eventually the fighting may/will come to our shores.

    It is clear that the world without a strong, active America has become a very violent place. It took decades for America to produce a “Pax Americana”… and just a few years for obama and ‘progressive’ liberal democrats to destroy it.

    • Dan Kimble

      great observation.

      How I wish Romney would have been elected.

      Now, if Americans have finally had enough….it may be time to start thinking of the future…how we try to repair America and the world.

      I’m going to post a very long post at the top of the comment section (needs the room to post it), about the idea of broadening the Pax Americana into something broader.

      • Max

        Into something like the Evil Empire? Or das Dritte Reich will be enough?

  • Steve Rodriguez

    More drivel – it is Obama’s fault that we are less safe today than when he took office. Bush made tactical mistakes, but he understood – A) You must KILL bad guys; B) you must KILL who protects the bad guys; and C) this will take a long time and there will be setbacks along the way. There is a reason that where America has forward deployed resources and troops, those places are mostly safe, secure and peaceful (Japan, Korea, Germany). This was the Iraq Obama inherited in 2009-10 after the Bush surge. The 2011 election Obama made no effort to force Maliki to honor the elections of Sunni politicians. When the generals said we needed at least 35,000, but at a minimum 15-20K in soldiers, he rebuffed them saying he would only consider 3-4000. Maliki would not extend his neck to immunize US soldiers from prosecution if he was only going to get 4000 of them, so he said I’ll take my chances with the Iranians. Obama has taken a US victory and flushed it down the toilet so he and the leftists can blame Bush for invading in the first place. Bush understood the Middle East was unstable in the first place. In retrospect, the jihadis would have tried to topple Saudi Arabia first if they were not heading to Iraq. None of this was good planning, but it was clearly defined: Bush was pro-American in his decision making and actions; Obama has been pro-Islam, pro-Iran, and detrimental to American interests in his decision making. Any other description is simply untrue.

    • Dan Kimble


  • 1630

    Surrat and Baldwin weren’t responsible for the reoccupation of the Rhineland; Ford wasn’t responsible for the Khmer Rouge killing fields; and Clinton wasn’t responsible for the Tutsi genocide. But these things all happened on their respective watches, and their actions or inactions were part of the equation. Obama’s inaction on the rise of AQI and then ISIS is a part of the equation, and history will judge him accordingly.

  • geezer117

    Good Lord! I’m surprised Mead could unfasten his lips from Obama’s backside long enough to write this love letter.

  • Joe Truth

    The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

    He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

    What he isn’t, not a genetic drop of, is ‘African-American,’ the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn’t a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

    Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

    It’s something Hillary doesn’t understand – how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

    Thus Obama has become the white liberals’ Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

    Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

    He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.

    And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those that did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those that were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.

    Remember you don’t have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.

  • valwayne

    This article is remarkably kind to Obama. Obama may not have lit the match, but his INCOMPETENCE, and idiot policies have pour gasoline all over them. Consider that every expert military or otherwise said we had to leave a residual force in Iraq, and they warned the country would disintegrate if we didn’t, but Obama wanted to appease his left wing supporters so he bugged out. What is happening in Iraq was predicted by everybody. And while Obama was busy lying to us that Al Qaeda was on the run they were actually building and growing. Worse, the leader of ISIS this Al Qaeda offshoot running all over Iraq was released by Obama in 2009. Yes folks, Obama provided the leader for Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq who has made Al Qaeda stronger than every, and what do you suppose will happen in the next year or two with the 5 murdering terrorists/Taliban that Obama set free two weeks ago. Obama says their are watching them? So if they watch the murdering terrorists that they set free than how can Obama be surprised by what this guy and Al Qaeda are doing in Iraq? Obama has LIED to us folks. LIED and LIED and LIED. And its not just the nightmare Obama ahs created in Iraq. He’s doing the same thing in Afghanistan. The murderous Taliban, who now have their terrorist leaders back, know when Obama is bugging out because he told them, and they won’t just take down Afghanistan. Like Al Qaeda in Iraq that attacked from Syria they will attack and take down Pakistan with its NUKES. You already saw that they are trying to light a fire in Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Those countries hate each other and both have nukes. Everywhere you look Neville Obama’s weakness and INCOMPETENCE is leading to disaster. Putin has Crimea and is sending tanks into Eastern Ukraine, and who knows what the Chinese are doing, but they certainly have Obama’s number. Obama’s failed policies and INCOMPETENCE are creating chaos across the world, and it is Obama’s fault.

    • Max

      You’ve misunderstood what Psaki told you: it was not tanks it was TRIPODS sent by Putin!

  • Dan Kimble


    Longer term, we need to form a new, Global acting alliance, headed by the USA, and including the countries of the English speaking world, as the core, as well as other freedom loving, like minded countries. This alliance would act as the world stabilizing force the USA has provided since WWII, and even expand and somewhat codify this role. With the establishment of the Freedom Alliance, the USA could then either withdraw from the UN, seeing it is an utterly useless organization, or stay on, just as a face saving ploy for the rest of the countries, which are useless in accomplishing anything important.

    The Freedom Alliance would thereafter act a a rapid response ‘world policeman’ and stabilizing force, as the USA really can’t afford to continue to do this anymore. Yet, with our advanced military, we would be able to share the cost of what had been the Pax Americana, as well as set forth rules by which other nations which benefit from such protection and stabilization effects, MUST contribute to the costs in a significant manner.

    By the establishment of such a Freedom Alliance, and by ensuring that the costs of operating the Freedom Alliance are shared across many nations of the world, a new Pax Freedom Alliance, could begin to methodically, enhance stability and peace around the world, to a significant degree. In other words, the stability which has arisen from the Pax Americana since WWII, could actually be enhanced and codified, so that it would be understood that certain lawlessness on the part of terrorist groups, or aggression from national states, etc., would not be tolerated by the Freedom Alliance (FA).

    the Freedom Alliance would be an overwhelmingly dominant military force, as it would still have at it’s core, the ever increasing sophistication of the American military machine, and the Freedom Alliance would be a decisive acting force, as the decision and command structure would be formulated from only a handful of like minded nations (English Speaking, primarily), where they share an implicit set of global interests, and the decision making process has predetermined what these interests are, and under what circumstances they will act, for many situations. The function of the Freedom Alliance (FA) would be multifaceted. Here are some examples taken from past, current, and future situations:

    The Genocide in Rwanda:

    Bill Clinton said this had been his greatest failure. The genocide killed about 800,000 people. This situation could have been prevented by the quick insertion of capable forces such as American troops. Here the FA could have deployed it’s forces rapidly, responding to a situation which was based on the guideline of the FA acting as a humanitarian force to prevent a disaster. The FA could have also, after it’s swift action to prevent disaster, mobilized a few key African nations to become involved in ongoing peace keeping and nation building, as collaborators of the actions of the FA.

    Preventing A Nuclear Armed Iran:

    The FA would essentially be acting as the armed fist backing up a very tough international negotiating team making it very clear that there will be NO nuclear armed threat in the future from Iran, and that Iran will stand down starting at a very certain deadline. With the combined strength of the core nations of the FA, combined with numerous nations backing up the FA’s mission, with moral support, and what ever resources they can contribute, even if just at a symbolic level, Iran would likely be brought to heel, and not many nations would be willing to try to back Iran up, just to thwart one nation, as they previously did when America was the only military force backing up this mission.

    Gone will be the days when other nations simply tried to thwart the USA just for the hell of it. Now, they are facing the moral authority of the FA, backed up by many other nations signing on to such a mission initiated by the FA. The additional nations backing up a specific mission of the FA will vary from mission to mission. But, as the prestige and the moral authority of the FA grows, it will increasingly become a matter of prestige to become involved with the missions of the FA. And, of course, when the FA’s mission is in your nation’s interest, then, the FA mission quickly gathers the force of other nations jumping on board the mission.

    So, in the case of the Iran mission, the FA provides the military force, the quick, decisive ability to act, the negotiating team with very tough, focused goals which will not be compromised, and the overall executive force of directing the whole mission.

    Who will join the FA in it’s Iran mission. India, Saudia Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., as the obvious ones in the region. But, many other nations would join as well, simply for the prestige as well as to engender the good will and their cooperative history with the FA. Poland would be an example.

    Protecting the Integrity of Ukraine:

    First, the original treaty between Russia, the Ukraine, and Britain and the USA which guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine if they surrendered their nuclear weapons would have had the FA as the signators rather than Britain and the USA. Russia would have been very wary of trying to take over the Crimea, under these circumstances. But, let’s say they began to try, regardless.

    What happens from there is that Russia says the Crimea should have been a part of Russia when the Ukraine broke from the Soviet Union, and witness that the people of the Crimea want to be part of Russia. The FA says, OK, we see some degree of legitimacy here, Let us all sit down at the table and negotiate.

    What might be reasonable for an outcome is supervised elections in the Crimea. Possibly this leads to an independent Crimea, maintaining strong relationships with Russia, and guarantees of the Russian bases located there. Additional negotiations lead to the Ukraine charting an independent course where they maintain their neutrality, much like Finland, and neither ally with Russia or the west, but act as an intermediary nation with strong ties to both. This works out well for all parties, and, in fact enhances stability, and allows Russia to have better relations with Europe, and to benefit from growing trade, and increased trust. Why does Russia settle? Because the initial treaty was backed by the FA, and the power, both military and morally of the FA is too much for Russia to risk challenging for the chance of a winner take all victory for Russia. The upshot for Russia is that she gets some of what she wants, without really hurting other nations or subjugating peoples, and, over time, Russia realizes that it was actually good for Russia. Farther in the future, if China becomes aggressive against Russia, and begins to clamor about the historic Chinese claim to Siberia, Russia will be able to look to the FA for help.

    The upside for the world would be multi-faceted. First, the Freedom Alliance could work toward world stabilization, by, over time, deposing the many tin horn, kleptocratic dictatorships in places like Africa, where people suffer from these types of regimes and lack of development, due to the corruption and incompetence. The Freedom Alliance (FA) would be able to send in advisory groups to reconfigure governments along the lines of free enterprise democracies, emulating the English speaking world’s rule of law heritage. Obviously, this would be a long term prospect, as we would have to do this one nation at a time. Of course, as it caught on, you might see a ‘World Spring’, where people rise up in a number of places, to overthrow useless dictatorships.

    Who would be in the FA?

    The USA first.

    Britain, next, of course, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

    This would be the core.

    Then, European nations. Poland would be key, for providing a gallant standard bearer for all of Eastern Europe to rally around so that Russia sees the metal of their metal.

    The bottom line is that the FA is composed of a core group of nations, mainly English speaking, which share the same heritage and inclinations, as well as the same national interests, and carry on the tradition of the Pax Americana/Pax Britanica, of helping to ensure world peace and stability. The differences between the old Pax Americana and the new Pax Freedom Alliance is that the FA will be more than one nation, and will only be the core, the fast acting decisive core, which has a predetermined set of situations in which it will generally act, as well as a very efficient command and decision making system where it is able to judge each situation as it comes up, and act quickly as one force.

    Because the FA is a multinational force, it carries more moral authority than America alone, and is somewhat shed of the knee jerk anti-American reaction, which is used to counter all actions by America in the past, by whatever nation was opposed. Yes there will still be opposition to the FA’s actions, and propaganda used against the FA, but it will not have the same force as anti-Americanism, and, as the FA grows in trust from the world community, more and more nations will elect to support the various actions, missions of the FA.

    In other words, what President George Bush accomplished in the first desert war in kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, is very much what the FA would look like. However, what took president George Bush Sr. many months to accomplish in gathering an alliance together, would already IMMEDIATELY be in place, with the core group of the FA immediately deciding a course of action, and other nations signing on to the mission, as the FA proceeded to implement it’s plan of action.

    Some nations would be allowed to join the FA, either as a core member with full decision making participation, or possibly as adjunct members, with participation in decision making functions within their geographic theater. But, admission to the FA is not a right of any nation, it is a privilege, and is governed by strict prerequisites. The FA cannot be governed by naive notions of egality between nations, such as has epitomized the UN, and made it a silly pawn to obstructive political maneuvering.

    The key to the FA is that it must be a cohesive alliance capable of making rapid fire military decisions and actions, as if it was one power, with one mind. Thus, the FA would be able to emulate the USA or Britain at the height of their powers.

    The key to the FA is America staying vibrant, keeping it’s military power far ahead of China, for instance, and for America to reinvigorate it’s economy, and become the industrial powerhouse it needs to be. It is key that the North American continent become literally self sufficient in it’s ability to manufacture every item significant to our military and economy. We have no real need to have anything manufactured outside North America, as our continent is so large that we have no real need to have manufacturing done in China, as an example. It is dangerous to allow such reliance on China or others. Also, members and adjunct members of the Freedom Alliance will be given preferential treatment in economic trade and access to the North American markets, the most important vehicle for economic growth. Our markets are a strategic asset, and must be treated as such. No longer should we give free access to nations who are not tightly bound to the USA or the Freedom Alliance. That simply makes no sense. It allows nations with cheap labor to simply hollow out our industries and jobs. There is no logic to allowing this.

    A realignment of free trade needs to be done. We can’t afford to be shipping our jobs off to China and other low wage countries….these countries will simply have to develop the same way the USA did….internally, and not rely upon siphoning off industries from western nations.

    To some extent, for this vision to succeed, we need to see the rise of conservatism, and the replacement of socialism and political correctness. The simple minded political correctness is a very destructive force in the western world, and must not be allowed to interfere with the logic of the establishment of the FA, or to impede rational government within the USA and other member nations of the FA.

    Well, this is my vision. It makes much sense, and there is much more to it. But, essentially, it is a strategy of recognizing the superiority of the English countries heritage of capitalism and the rule of law, and the innate anti-tyrannical nature of the English speaking world. The combination of free enterprise with the English speaking heritage of the rule of law, is actually the natural, organic, best practice principle of organizing a society. Sure, allow other nations to create variations, but freedom and justice and free enterprise needs to lie at the core, as the English speaking world, and some other countries (Switzerland), for example.

    By combining forces with other countries who see the light, and want to be allies of the FA, the FA becomes increasingly powerful, and a better provider of the common sense Pax American/Pax Britannica which our two countries provided over the past few hundred years.

    The burden of funding the military might of the FA and it’s other functions, such as helping nations create governing structures after a destructive dictatorship is wiped away by the FA, would fall on the FA nations. However, other nations benefiting from the stability of the FA would need to recognize the benefits, and contribute to the funding of the FA. This is key. No more free rides on America, or on Britain, as well.

    Thus, the FA creates many benefits. First we have a new version, and a more robust version of the traditional Pax American, Pax Britannica. The Pax Freedom Alliance is based upon an already stated foreign policy of promoting stabilization in the world, as well as actively working to reduce trouble areas, such as proactively ridding the world of ridiculous, tin horn dictatorships, which only create trouble and misery for their own peoples. On the sights of the FA would be dictatorships in Africa, North Korea, Iran, etc. Overturning these evil regimes would take time, but they would also know their days are numbered, and so would their people.

    Finally, the goals of the FA, being openly agreed upon and stated by the FA, would not be subject to the vagaries of what political party gets in power in the USA, say. Thus, the ascension of an Obama into the presidency would not allow Obama to change the foreign policy of the FA. In the FA organization, there would be very large hurdles for one of the nations to withdraw. Thus, a large degree of autonomy has been surrendered by the USA and other FA states upon the entering into the FA. In other words, foreign policy, to a large extent, is now in the hands of the FA, rather then the individual nations of the FA. So, no sabotaging of the foreign policy of the FA by an actor, such as an Obama, would be allowed. The foreign policy of the FA becomes very stable, and very much able to be relied upon by the world.

    Why is it in the interest of America or other nations to join the Freedom Alliance? For the core members of the FA, the military function, in particular, is made up by their nation’s military. Essentially, the development and maintenance of the most advanced military organization becomes an integral part of the core nations’ economy. This military industry becomes a great source of sophisticated careers for those nations’ citizens. And, the advanced technology created by the military technology also has stimulative aspects which spread throughout these nation’s economies.

    The great cooperation between members of the FA also expand across their economies. Members of the FA are given most favored treatment in trade and economic cooperation. The core nations of the FA are those that benefit most, but other nations who become reliable allies of the FA, serve as adjunct members, etc., gain significant economic and military advantages, as well.

    For, example, Poland may likely move to become as close to the FA as possible. This would be in in the interest of the FA, as peace and stabilization of Europe against a possible, aggressive Russia seeking to reestablish it’s sphere of influence would be an obvious goal of the FA. All of Europe would benefit greatly from such a goal, and would be expected to contribute greatly to the FA, financially, in pursuit of this goal. However, Poland, being in the very strategic position it is in to execute this goal, may well host military bases for this purpose, and need to maintain it’s own significant military power to enforce this goal. Thus, it becomes an adjunct member of the FA, and receives some significant funding for it’s enhanced military function, seeing that it is on the front line of protecting Europe.

    Thus, Spain can not expect to gain a free ride for the cost of maintaining peace and stability from the FA. Spain must contribute financially, and the FA is compensated for it’s function, and Poland, as well, is compensated for needing to maintain a larger, more effective military than Spain needs to maintain. Thus, Poland gains prestige for it’s cooperation with the FA, for it’s being an important adjunct member of the FA, possibly becoming even a core member of the FA, and it gains the economic benefits of maintaining a larger, sophisticated military, as well as the favored status it will have in economic ties with the members of the FA.

    In short, the core members of the FA in particular, gain very real economic benefits for being part of the FA, as well as the prestige, and the responsibility of being members of the FA, whether as core members, or key adjunct members. Poland would be in a key strategic position, geographically, to be a key member of the FA, possibly even a core member, as their national interest is well aligned with the English speaking nations, which would form the core of the FA.

    This is my idea of a way to ensure that the function of world peace and stabilization, which America provided since WWII, would not only be carried on, but even enhanced, expanded and codified to a large degree. In effect, in regards to many policies, particularly foreign policy, the establishment of the FA would be creating an even greater super power than the USA. However, the USA would remain the center of this FA, and the costs of operating the FA would be spread out over the nations of the FA, and also, the many nations gaining the benefits of peace and stabilization would be expected to contribute significantly to the costs. No more free rides on America and other nations, such as Britain, which often chip in to stabilize the world.

    • Max

      Why bother calling it some FREEDOM ALLIANCE? Better call it Das Vierte Reich, the DR for short, the West has wonderful freedom traditions!

    • Max

      <Who will join the FA in it’s Iran mission. India, Saudia Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh…
      You've picked up great allies. I would be pleased watching India and Pakistan; Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel working together.
      No wonder that a country of such crappy-brained commentators is now called Psaki-stan.

  • CKAinRedStateUSA

    No, he wasn’t the arsonist who lit the match.

    He’s simply the man who poured gasoline on the fire and then fanned the flames with his destabilizing, disingenuous words; and pathetic, pantywaisted, pro-terrorist actions.

  • YesWeCan3

    What we are seeing is the failure of liberal diplomacy. The State Department is filled with liberals and leftists who believe everyone should be allowed self governance and if we are nice we will be perceived as just and be loved. This is a naïve and simplistic approach to a complicated world.
    Societies are all different, less developed societies need strong autocratic rulers. The Islamic world is such an example.
    Bush was wrong thinking he could bring freedom to the middle east, Obama was even more wrong thinking he could reduce American influence and belittle America for points.
    The middle east is in flames and needs to burn itself out so a new generation of western thinkers can see the folly of this politically correct morass of thinking in which no one opinion is greater than another
    We all can not just get along. This is not the playground where some adult is watching.

  • pabarge

    Walter Russell Mead, the author of this article voted both times for Barack Obama. Never, ever forget this.

    • EllenO

      Exactly – I saw an interview with Mead on TV and although he came over as knowledgeable regarding global affairs I had difficulty squaring that with the information that he voted twice for Obama.

      First time I could understand: an excited America ready to take the once unthinkable leap, but then as the presidency unfolded and it became more and more obvious that the Obama presidency was – alas – just another version of the affirmative action craze sweeping the US, surely any thinking man would have doubts.

      If Mead could not bring himself to vote for a Republican – he is an academic after all (they don’t vote Republican) – he could at least have abstained. But no, the fool – for how else can I interpret his action – voted for Obama again. Clearly a slow learner.

      Sadly it calls into question his judgment on all the other discussions where apparently race and political correctness trump common sense and clouds rational thought. His apparent good sense is simply a facade.

      A disappointment to be sure.

  • boonteetan

    Did someone say the earth is on fire? Yes, it is, some intentionally, deliberately or inadvertently made by man, others naturally caused by dry hot weather. The fire is raging fiercely, due in no small part to religion and racism.
    Do not expect US to single-handedly put off or diminish the fire. It needs the collective effort and understanding of all nations, everyone is responsible. Somehow we are too naive to pretend we can ignore the fact that there is not much time left.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service