President Obama Fiddles While the World Burns
In Iran the most amazing things are happening. Every year on the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran, pro-government demonstrators march in front of the embassy to denounce America. This year Democracy activists are counter-protesting and appealing to the U.S. for help. It is an amazing turn of events which reveals that Obama Administration has been neglecting Iran’s Democracy movement for too long.
Many protesters gathered in chants of, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us”. Obama’s culture of self-loathing anti-Americanism is being challenged like never before. His foreign policy of playing nice with our enemies and tough with our friends is not paying off. The leftwing ideology of anti-Americanism is cracking at the seams.
President Obama has been dithering for too long. His policy of ignoring the truth about the Iranian regime in order to foster dialog with them is angering Iranians who long for freedom. While the Mullahs of Iran are helping to kill American troops, support further instability in the Levant, oppress their citizens and stall efforts to prevent its nuclear proliferation… Obama does nothing.
Obama and His Generals
It is an all too familiar pattern. After some early hope that Obama would live up to his hawkish campaign promise to focus on the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the President has become negligent towards what he once referred to as the “central front” in the War on Terror (or rather what used to be called the War on Terror). Judging by the way he has always shunned our top generals in the field, it was inevitable.
On January 10, 2007, Obama was quoted on MSNBC as saying the following about the Iraq Troop Surge:
“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”
Considering the success of the Surge it would be logical to wonder which military officers Obama was talking to.
In May of 2008 Vets for Freedom released an ad challenging Presidential candidate Barack Obama to meet one on one with General Petraeus, whom he had been reluctant to consult with. It was a part of a firestorm of criticism that forced Obama to visit Iraq and meet directly with Petraeus.
So Obama didn’t sit down to meet with General Petraeus, one on one, until July 2008. Therefore he never properly consulted Petraeus (the principal architect of the Surge) before condemning the operation. Furthermore, he had to be shamed into directly meeting with the general through determined political pressure. Obama didn’t speak privately with any military officer who believed that the Surge would make a substantial difference on the ground because he was not interested in meeting with military leaders that would express such sentiments. His consultations with military leaders were dictated by his desire to shape his military policy according to his own political agenda and so he consulted only with military leaders who he felt would support his preconceived conclusions.
This is not an isolated trend. In August of this year the Obama Administration shelved a report from General Stanley McChrystal asking for a troop increase in Afghanistan. By the end of September it became known that the President didn’t meet with McChrystal in person since the general took over command of Afghanistan in June and only spoke to him on one occasion during that time. Once again, after concerted political pressure, Obama was shamed into meeting our top commander who was in charge of our most critical war zone.
President Obama is not as interested in winning the war in Afghanistan as much as he is interested in promoting himself politically. I don’t doubt that he would like to win the war, but he has other priorities ahead of that goal. His non-stop political campaigning takes precedence. Obama is running for the 2012 presidential election now, just like he spent much of his only term in the U.S. Senate running for President in the 2008 election.
When Obama finally met McChrystal, the general had to fly to Denmark where the President was campaigning to have the 2016 Olympics hosted in his hometown! McChrystal was lucky that Obama was able to squeeze in 25 minutes to meet him. He was third down in the list of the President’s priorities.
Associated Press related that Obama originally turned down several requests by the Chicago bid committee when they asked him to take part in Chicago’s presentation to the IOC. Despite Obama’s long commitment to Chicago’s bid, he professed that he was too deeply involved with the debate on health care. Ultimately the lure of Chicago politics won out and Obama decided that one day wouldn’t jeopardize his work on health care “reform”. The meeting with McChrystal was added at the last minute to a schedule that was put together at the last minute. It was a measure of Obama’s appreciation for his top general in Afghanistan.
Note: You have to cringe at the first paragraph of the AP article… (sorry the link is already dead and I can't find another respectable link.)
In a quick dash of salesmanship, President Barack Obama is in the Danish capital, putting his personal powers of persuasion on the line to boost Chicago’s Olympics bid.
Without the colorful embellishments of the American media, Obama’s exaggerated powers of persuasion really don’t amount to much in the real world.
With the haphazard meeting out of the way, the media could now turn its attention to attacking McChrystal. The same tired arguments that were shown to be false during the Iraq Troop Surge are being regurgitated in Afghanistan.
As mentioned above, Obama predicted at the beginning of the Surge that it would fail. The popular sentiment was that an increase of American troops in Iraq would lead to more violence. Yet the opposite was true. This is because ever since the Vietnam War our society has cultivated a misconception of war and occupation. There is no evidence after the success of the Surge that the sentiment of the Iraqi public dramatically changed to the point that they overwhelmingly “loved” their occupier. What happened was more realistic and is the cornerstone of COIN strategy. Our allies in Iraq felt more protected and our enemies felt more threatened. This was how the Surge was so successful.
Where is our Afghan Strategy?
When the Obama Administration ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in February 2009, the increased troop levels were expected to last three to four years. Yet in September Obama said that we need an Afghan strategy before sending more troops. He stated, “I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don’t make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready.”
So why did he order troops to go to Afghanistan in February if he didn’t have a strategy? Its bad enough that President Obama neglects to consult with his top commanders and has to be shamed into meeting with them one on one... but he just completely neglects our troops in Afghanistan so he can campaign for healthcare “reform”, promote Chicago’s Olympic bid, play golf and fight a war against Fox News.
This was his greatest mistake. By using his Alinsky tactics of attacking and attempting to isolate Fox News, Obama has offended his most prized ally, the media. Now they are starting to see the Obama Administration for what it is.
So President Obama... You have no choice, but to abandon your rhetoric of self-loathing anti-Americanism. Iranian protesters need you. Your top generals deserve your ear. Afghanistan has to have more troops to defend its people who are isolated by mountainous terrain and victimized by a terrorist enemy who can slip through a porous border. Do something… you are the leader of the free world and you cannot sit on the fence any longer.