WhatFinger

“It is not our power, but our will and character that are being tested”

Obama Created EU Refugee Crisis


By —— Bio and Archives--September 7, 2015

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The absence of a solid U.S. foreign policy doctrine and leadership under U.S. President Obama has resulted in the deadly combination of power vacuums across the Middle East and little to no fear of consequential American military action challenging the war-crime infused tribalism filling these vacuums. This failed responsibility of the world’s Super Power to inject the strategic counterbalance now has the European Community in uncharted chaos in the Obama-created refugee exodus that rivals biblical events.

One simply needs to first look back Obama’s entry onto the world’s stage when he projected and promoted a kinder and capitulating America while traveling abroad during his first term. This tacit demeanor of conviction was a sign of weakness to the Putin-type bravado leaders who smirked and nodded with gratitude during the photo-op handshake only to be followed by symbolic sputum of disrespect in the weakness of the American leader opposing them.

The President’s decision to pull the plug on American missile defense from Poland and Eastern Europe in a conciliatory effort to build friendly relations with its adversaries and gain support on pressing geo-political matters was quickly recognized as feeble American resolute and a timid leader fearful to inject military power – a ‘green light’ requirement for dictators, tribalism, and state sponsored terrorism to thrust forward with their political and military ambitions.

It quickly became apparent that Obama’s strategic decisions were likened to an inexperienced manager in an entry-level position rather than the President of the United States of America.

The failed U.S. influence behind popular Arab uprisings bringing down governments has led to further instability when the bad guys were simply replaced by more bad guys or military dictatorships. When playing in the big boys club that results in the replacement or killing of leaders for new ones, there is a high risk of the unknown political fallout such as the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi leaving a ‘hell hole’ void in Libya for Islamic extremists to fill. We then had Obama supporting Egypt’s elected Muslim Brotherhood, allies with the Iranian regime and unruly segments in the Gaza Strip, only to witness the Egyptian military and supporting masses of the population seize the country back.

The President, in his theory or belief that U.S. has a history of running roughshod over the world, has also managed to move the idealist pendulum further away from America’s true friends only to exasperate tension and hinder good will that has been established over the decades. The most damaging has been the long standing special relationship with America’s greatest ally in the tumultuous Middle East when Obama turned his back on the Jewish nation and agreed to a nuclear deal with Iran. The leading sponsor of terrorism around the world remains steadfast in light of the deal with their intensions to extricate Israel from the region and attack American interests around the world. Essentially Obama was afraid to face Iran in a potential military confrontation and chose to abdicate his responsibility to the next sitting President encountering an Iran who will legally possess a threatening and deliverable nuclear arsenal.

Obama’s newly established bond with Iran has seen its longstanding Arab dance partner, Saudi Arabia

Obama’s newly established bond with Iran has seen its longstanding Arab dance partner, Saudi Arabia, wondering if they can count on the American allegiance that has historically created a balance of power in the region. The Saudis will now contemplate their own nuclear program as an equalizer to Iran and subsequently reposition the region into a nuclear tinderbox as extremism in the theatre threatens to shroud the Persian Gulf in a nuclear cloud. Secondly, had Obama established a strong rapport with oil giant, he would likely had influence over the kingdom’s decision to precipitously drop the world’s price of oil and thereby sustain America’s oil and gas sector and thousands of related jobs in America. 

The President even managed to stick it to its closest friend and neighbor by refusing to allow Canada’s Keystone Pipeline from being built and shipping reliable oil from the north to American refineries. Fortunately America’s friends are patiently biding their time in the wake of this regimes tenure with aspirations of healing the hairline fractures of mistrust created under this President and hoping relations are not permanently broken. One has to question whether this President’s actions with America’s traditional friends is something personal with the opposing leaders or an ideological disdain for America that is rooted in the longstanding international partnerships that have been lock and step in America’s great rise on the world’s stage. 

The refugee crisis was ignited by Obama when he made the ill-fated decision to prematurely pull American troops out of Iraq. Obama actually inherited a relatively stable Iraq where the presence of U.S military bases in Iraq maintained peace in a historically divided country struggling to become a democracy. The presence of U.S. power and fortitude to engage was reassuring to the people of Iraq forging ahead with a new constitution. This is not unlike America’s decision to maintain military bases and guidance in Germany and Japan following their defeat in WW II, and then a very successful military position in the DMZ between North and South Korea following the Korean War. The bases do not cost American tax payers any more than what it would be to house the soldiers in the U.S. so why do it when the job was not completed?

Instead, either Obama’s naive understanding of complex foreign affairs or the more likelihood of his head-in-the-sand possessed by political dovishness in utilizing the military as an effective resource in nation building. This disastrous position allowed for a power vacuum where the Iranian-backed Shia and opposing Sunni tribes to once again ascent in their ancient struggle for control of the country. Further to the north where seeds of democracy sought freedom in Syria, a simultaneous civil war began to ensue in an attempt to unseat the longstanding and ruthless President Bashar al-Assad.

The Russian-backed Syrian dictator unleashed his military might against the incapable pro-democracy movement that resulted in President Obama drawing the infamous line in the sand where he claimed American military might would engage the Assad regime if the brutality and slaughtering of tens of thousands of innocent people ensued. Fast forward to today and Obama’s failure to keep his ‘line in the sand’ commandment and the decision to pull out of Iraq resulted in birth of the barbaric and well-armed ISIS inserting themselves as the opposing force in two civil wars in Syria and Iraq. ISIS has since aligned with Islamic forces in Libya and other regions in Africa as they instill fear through their murderous brutality and ethnic and religious persecution. 

President Obama’s muted saber rattling was perceived as American weakness and provided the Assad regime with the ‘green light’ to proceed with the indiscriminate slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children that eventually displaced millions of people across the Middle East. With nowhere to turn, the hundreds of thousands of refugees began their trek in a mass exodus to the fruited plains of the European Community. Let’s be clear, ISIS never existed prior to Obama.

NIXON: America leveraging its position of strength and how a real leader of the free world should be commanding

     
We need not go too far back in history to validate respect for America leveraging its position of strength and how a real leader of the free world should be commanding. Former U.S. President Richard Nixon swiftly responded to North Vietnam’s attack on the South when the Chinese-Russian backed regime sent 150,000 soldiers and 200 Soviet tanks across the negotiated DMZ on the eve of Nixon’s historic visit to China and ensuing trip to Moscow. Nixon was not about to cancel the summits in protest and run politically jolted in the opposite direction to preserve his legacy. Rather, he tackled the intense pressure cooker head on without showing trepidation and was he not concerned on how others may judge him universally. Nixon understood his role as commander-in-chief. 

Nixon ordered an attack on the North that included over a thousand air strikes a day from 85 B-52s, an aircraft carrier, and 500 fighter bombers. This was in sharp contrast to his predecessor; U.S. President Johnson’s failed bombing halt on the North in response to mounting deleterious American public opinion. Nixon’s response, with little support from the U.S. Military Joint Chiefs, smashed the North’s aggression and furthermore damaged four Soviet ships.

President Nixon defended the credibility of the U.S., and commented afterwards that the Office of the President would not be worth holding if he was chased out of Vietnam by communists who had treated every conciliatory gesture with contempt.

With Nixon’s historic visit to China changing our world; and China no longer throwing its full weight behind the regime in North Vietnam, it placed additional pressure on Moscow to wedge itself in U.S.-China relations or be absconded from the big picture. The Soviets reaffirmed their invitation to the President; and Nixon responded by ordering an increase in airstrikes on North Vietnam from 1,000 to 1,200 a day upon his arrival. Nixon was greeted with much respect and ceremony; and the Russians promptly agreed to a Nuclear Weapons Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT). Unmistakably, the Nixon Doctrine of American projected vigor was venerated by the Russians.

One can only wonder why Obama is reluctant to deal with a miniscule ISIS relative to Nixon’s actions that took on the North Vietnam attach on the South, as well as an aggressive and simultaneous strategic diplomatic end around on the Soviets and Chinese. It certainly would not be the incapability of the most technologically advanced military apparatus in the world that is second to none. It is quite clear; the picture of an incapable leader in the moment of a crisis has emerged in this Presidency.

Nixon understood the domino effect in not acting. Strategically indecisive action would have resulted in the fall of South Vietnam; and the neighboring countries eventually falling to communism and destruction as the dominos began to collapse in the region. Nixon held his line in the sand. Obama’s failure to act has resulted in the domino effect in the region with the spread of ISIS and millions of people now dead, displaced, or on a deadly trek across land and sea.

The President’s foreign policy doctrine has now emboldened the Russians with a reemergence of vigor and nationalistic pride. The masterful Russian President, Vladimir Putin had been a cool backseat driver in the high risk Middle East uprisings until a domino fell on the Russian border and a decisive move was made in its national interest to annex Crimea and carve out pockets of territory on Ukraine’s far-reaching eastern border with the mother land. Putin knew the reaction from a dovish Obama would be muted with economic sanctions that would either be circumvented through despot nations unfriendly to the U.S. or simply withstand the test of time knowing the West would eventually cave into a settlement and force Ukraine to submit. Putin’s road map was clearly laid out as he observed the previous crisis played out in Iraq and Syria. America’s top military brass recently indicated that Russia has once again become the greatest threat to America. 

An estimated three hundred thousand refugees have made landfall in EU and they are scattering across the continent. Thousands more families are on route and EU leaders are clamoring for answers as the refugees flood their cities and villages. They have no answers and their economies are struggling to cope. They can lay blame on a President who has abdicated his responsibility to deal with the root cause.

Not surprising, the President has remained silent on the refugee crisis. The Republican candidates vying for the Presidency have yet to call Obama out on the exodus and the failed U.S. foreign policy under his leadership. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party’s frontrunner for the next President of the United States, should be pressed on her support of the failed doctrine during her stint as Secretary of State in the Obama regime.

Americans need to know where their next President stands on these issues and how he or she will project American foreign policy in the coming Presidential debates. President Nixon may be able to provide some guidance when he surmised, “It is not our power, but our will and character that are being tested”.


CFPSubcribe

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Rich Berdan -- Bio and Archives | Comments

<em>Rich Berdan, (ManofGrit) was a regular guest co-host on a popular radio broadcast and has grown his passion to write on various topics; resulting in numerous published editorials and features. As a proud American and Canadian citizen, Rich’s diverse work-life experience, including raising a family, as well as a number of bumps and twists along the road has resulted in this interesting journey we call life.<em>


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: