Aussie Conservative Political Philosophy/ Landmark Posts · Barrack Obama

Barrack Hussein Obama: My theory

ob

Nearly 8 years ago, Barrack Obama forever instilled himself in history, as America’s first African- American President. Obama primarily campaigned on his capacity to bring hope and change to America, and to unite a country that had historically been racially and religiously divided. However, if the Obama mandate was to truly unite the United States, and through this goal we could judge his performance, then the Obama presidency has been an abject failure. The contrast between the 2007 Presidential campaigns and the modern day could not be starker. From the ambitious and optimistic rhetoric set forward 8 years ago, the debate has shifted further and further in an angry and fiery direction, as optimized by Donald Trump on the right, and Bernie Sanders on the Left. Obama has struggled to fulfill the lofty expectations that were once set, and across a broad range of areas, his Presidency has floundered.

There have been countless areas of weakness for President Obama, but today, I will focus on his relationship with the Islamic world and his foreign policy, which in my eyes reveals some frightening possibilities. In order to proceed in a relatively non biased manner, I will make absolutely clear, that this post will contain factual claims, followed by further factual claims, from which I will draw a conclusion about Barrack Obama. It is up to individuals to draw whatever theory or opinion they desire, while I offer mine. When Barrack Obama is subject to a thorough examination, 2 things are undeniable, regardless of political standpoints.

  1. Islamist movements have consistently benefited throughout Obama’s Presidency.
  2. There are suspicious advisors/ staff, within the Obama administration, that demand scrutiny from any sane person that believes in Western values, and the seperation between Church and State.

To some, the correlation between these 2 facts may be incidental, and Obama’s foreign policy towards the Islamic world could be looked upon as being a series of careless and ill- thought out errors. Regardless, I will proceed to my critique of America’s policies towards the Islamic world in the last 8 years.

In 2009, before the world famous Al- Azhar university in Egypt, Barrack Obama promised to heal the ‘severely damaged’ United States relations with the Muslim World. The Muslim world (at least the fundamentalist and conservative branches), would certainly look upon Barrack Obama in a kinder light to his predecessor, as his policies have played a key role in the spreading of Islamist movements. In the Arab Spring of 2011, the Obama administration supported the protests against the Egyptian leader Mubarek, a long time ally of the United States. In Mubarek’s place, as Egypt’s leader, eventually, came Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Islamo- Supremacist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to bring the entire world under the rule of Islamic law. To make matters worse, since the overthrow of Morsi in 2013, Obama has refused to publicly support the current Egyptian leader, Abdel Fattah el- Sisi, despite his domestic popularity. El- Sisi has a marked reputation as a moderate, particularly after he publicly pledged his desire for Islam to undertake a reformation. Already, in the case of Egypt, I find it particularly concerning that Barrack Obama is willing to cut off ties from a country which has a secular leader, a position which is at odds with his past generous stances towards the members of a fundamentalist Islamic group.

Barrack Obama’s pro- Islamist foreign policy was further exposed in 2011, when conflict emerged in Libya between Muammar Gaddaffi and rebel groups. In initial response to the conflict, the Security Council passed resolution 1973, which established a no- fly zone over Libya, and enacted the freezing of many Libyan assets, in a bid to halt the outbreaks of violence. Yet, Western leadership, largely guided by Barrack Obama, extended far beyond the original provisions of the resolution, as airpower attacked pro- Gaddafi vehicles, and special troops were employed in the country. Noam Chaomsky reflected this overreach stating; “NATO powers violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for “all necessary steps” to protect civilians, but there’s a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels”. Now I don’t pretend for a second that Gaddafi, or Mubarek, were particularly pleasant or democratic leaders. But Gaddafi, similar to Mubarek and other Middle Eastern dictators, were highly effective in establishing economic, social and political stability under their regimes. Fast track 5 years, and the Libyan state is in chaos, with Islamic State establishing strongholds in the country, most noteably in Sirte. The creation of a power vaccum five years ago by Western powers, has undeniably aided the rise of Islamist groups in Libya. Sure, other Western leaders supported the intervention in Libya, but as US president, and the most powerful country in the alliance, much responsibility for the current situation must be assigned to Obama.

Moreover, it is approaching a year since the signing of the infamous nuclear deal signed with Iran. Despite Iran’s vitriolic and regretful rhetoric towards Israel, its continued devotion to anti- Semetism and holocaust denial, as well as a repeated and ongoing sponsoring of Islamic terrorism in Lebanon, the Gaza strip, and Yemen, the America- led deal with Iran released hundreds of billions of dollars of the country’s frozen assets back towards the rogue nation. Put simply, the Iran deal, has made the United States the biggest sponsor of Islamic terrorism. It is staggering to think, that under President Obama, the United States has carelessly disregarded the substantial leverage that it had in negotiations, and further extended Iran’s capacity to develop its nuclear capacity. Currently, Iran is a dangerous country, playing a central role in the development of militiant Islam, and these released funds have made the nation only more dangerous. But to imagine a future, no matter how far it is down the line, in which Iran has a nuclear weapon, is extraordinarily frightening. The country’s continued promises to annihilate Israel, must be taken seriously, and with a nuclear weapon, this bastion of Islamism has the capacity to create a conflict unparalelled in the world’s history. Under no circumstances, should Iran be potentially allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, or have any assistance in its spread of terrorism around the world. I find the Iran deal particularly inditing on President Obama’s legacy, as the United States signed a deal so cataclysmic, and yet for so little gain.

The Obama foreign policy pursued in Iraq has also witnessed a trail of disasters. As a person who had constantly resented American presence in Iraq, Obama promised a swift withdrawal of US troops from Iraq during his Presidential campaign trail. George Bush prophetically warned of this in 2007, stating; “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States… It would mean that we would be risking mass killings on a horrific scale”. Despite a destabilizing situation, Obama left the ill- prepared Al- Maliki in 2011, to govern Iraq without the presence of US troops. The legacy of this action is clear, as the Islamic State has now established strongholds in much of Iraq, largely due to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and the Obama’s abandonment of US committments in the region.

The policies pursued in Syria are similarly disastrous. After civil war broke out in Syria in 2011, the United States began arming many of the anti- Assad rebels, naively deemed ‘democratic freedom fighters’ by much of the Western press. Ultimately, the major rebel group fighting against the Assad regime, became the Islamic State, which has since become famous around the world for its revival of caliphatism, and as its tactics of extreme barbarity. Furthermore, in 2013, Barrack Obama sought the approval of congress for militiary action in Syria, which included the possibility of a ground invasion. Thankfully, this was rejected, and had it gone ahead, and Assad overthrown, it would be likely that the Islamic State would be in control of Damascus, and the rest of Syria. This anti- Assad stance has continued as Obama has continued to strike Assad forces modestly, while equally modestly striking the Islamic State. Despite rhetoric, it is important to note that current US involvement in Syria bewilderingly insignificant. Last week, jihadwatch revealed that the United States is only striking 16 targets a day in Syria, compared to Russia’s 1888. Such a a tactic is bizarre to say the least, and the limited involvement in Syria, as well as the continued striking of both rebels and Assad, begs the question; what is the US end goal in Syria? I know this much; it is certainly not what it is purported to be, and while the intentions of some may be of decent nature, current policies are part of the reason the Islamic State is still alive in Syria.

In the last 8 years, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria, have been fruitful places for Islamism under the Presidency of Barrack Obama. Stay tuned for my next post, in which I discuss Obama’s Islamist leaning staff, and tie this back to his foreign policy in developing my theory about America’s 44th President.

 

7 thoughts on “Barrack Hussein Obama: My theory

Leave a Reply