Attached is an essay
by one
of my associates on the subject
of President Obama's foreign policy and actions. I have added my own comments in
red at the end of each paragraph.
ACS
Unfortunately, we are
enduring the dismal failure of Obama in both domestic and foreign affairs.
Domestic performance deficiency is obvious and may be the subject of a separate
commentary. This will trace the succession of his failures in foreign affairs.
It must start over eight years ago when Obama was elected
senator.
No
comment.
You may recall that, when he
was present, he opposed most of the initiatives of George Bush after the attack
of 9/11. When Obama was elected president, his first move was to call for the
closure of Guantanamo. Even with total control of the Congress, he was unable
to accomplish this.
George Bush also had a poor foreign policy,
but Pres. Obama has only made it worse. Calling for the closure of Guantanamo
was ridiculous. Lack of Congressional approval for the closure was one of the
few things that Congress has done right.
He had opposed our military
intervention in Iraq which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the early,
tenuous development of a representative government in Iraq. It was the "wrong"
war and Afghanistan was the "right" war. As a result, he failed to get an
agreement of forces for our continued military presence, and we left completely.
Kindly consider that this was the first abandonment since WW II. We still
maintain a military presence in Germany, Okinawa and South Korea. As you have
certainly noted, Iraq has fallen again into political chaos and is no longer an
ally in the Middle East.
Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was
correct. His approval of the war in Afghanistan was incorrect. There was no
justification for either war. The US was not being attacked, nor was there an
imminent threat of any kind. The only justification for either war was "nation
building", which is not a justification. The US has no right to tell other
peoples of the world how they should live. If the Iraqis didn't like Saddam
Hussein, it was up to them to dispose of him, not the US. If we don't like opium
production of Afghanistan because it negatively affects our society, wipe it
out, but that doesn't need ground forces. Similarly, the Korean War and the
Vietnamese War were also ridiculous. They were undertaken presumably on the
basis of controlling the foreign expansion of communism. Sixty years later, we
see that socialism/communism has failed in some societies through no direct
intervention by the US. We also see that the US has developed an incipient
socialistic-communistic society in its homeland.
After dithering for months,
Obama increased our military presence in Afghanistan However, he did not follow
the recommendations of our military commanders and permitted only a more limited
deployment. He has now directed the full withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is
not difficult to forecast the outcome of this failure. Military leaders try to
win wars. Obama treats them as political issues - to the detriment of our
national security.
Obama is correct in trying to end the
Afghanistan war. We have no basis of being there in the first place, as
indicated above.
Along the way, with
intelligence gained from prisoners at Guantanamo, Osama bin Laden was found and
killed. This led to Obama's proclamation that Al Qaeda had been defeated and
was no longer a threat to our security.
Osama bin Laden
was an active enemy of the United States and was justifiably killed. Pres. Obama
and the US military deserve recognition for this accomplishment. However, the
claim that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the United States is ridiculous.
That threat is ongoing into eternity, because it is ideological, in the same way
that internal socialism/communism are continuing threats to the economic
well-being of the US.
Then came Benghazi and the
murder of four Americans. Both Obama and Sec'y Clinton lied to us in claiming
that the attack was a local response to some little known video critical of
Islam. At the time of their lies, they both knew that their statements were
untrue. Both finally had to admit that the attack on our consulate was
organized and carried out by an Al Qaeda cell. Obama's pledge to find the
perpetrators was hollow and a cover-up continues. Obviously, an open
investigation would discredit his ridiculous claim that Al Qaeda is no longer a
threat.
President Obama claimed to have Al
Qaeda under control. When the
Benghazi incident occurred, the combination of power
and conviction to ideology led to the normal reaction of lying. Obama and
Hillary Clinton fell into that trap. The conviction of ideology also led to
negligence in supplying proper support for State Department employees in
Benghazi, and
the power aspect does not allow Pres. Obama to admit this, thus leading to
continuing cover-up.
More important, State Department employees
should not have been in Benghazi in the first place. Benghazi is a
one-horse town in a country that is little more than an oasis. Other than a few
dates from date palms, and a little oil, it has no significance to the US. In
fact, all of North Africa has no significance to the US, except for Egypt, which
controls the Suez Canal. Rommel's involvement in North Africa during World War
II was only a prelude to eventually being able to occupy Egypt and take over the
Canal. In the present time, Libya has only achieved significance because Obama
has made it so. He decided to use it as an opportunity for another "nation
building" operation, but it is failing, as do all attempts at nation
building.
Now we are all watching the
investigation of the bombing at the Boston Marathon. Incredibly, in his first
public statement, Obama called it a "tragedy" and later admitted that it was a
terrorist attack. This was the first such incident on American soil since 9/11.
It appears that the FBI is close to finding the perpetrators, and we shall soon
know the details. It is impossible for Obama to cover this
up.
It is true that
Obama had previously claimed that Al Qaeda had been neutralized, but at least
after the Benghazi episode few persons actually believe that. It is likely that
terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but has achieved more significance in modern
times. There will always be those persons who object to something and are
willing to take strong actions, such as attempts at personal assassinations or
general population killing just to vent their spleen. Invasion by an organized
foreign force will continue to be a possibility, for which reason we have a
military. The newer aspect of terrorism, by individuals or small groups of
either foreign or domestic origin, is a separate matter and is now recognized by
the US as requiring attention. This is the basis for development of the
Department of Homeland Security. Congress did a good job in establishing that
Department. Unfortunately, it is administered by Pres. Obama and his team of
which Director Napolitano is one of the most inept. I have previously called for
her resignation.
To my knowledge, all of the
statements above are supported by facts, but I would be glad to learn of any
misstatements. It is a tragedy that our political leadership has failed
abysmally.
Generally agreed.
CJ
