Posts Tagged ‘ally’

How’s Obama Doing In Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq? Not So Good

April 7, 2010

Let’s take them in alphabetical order.  First, How’s Obama doing in Afghanistan?

Not so good.  Our foreign policy is so deteriorated there that Obama is refusing to even acknowledge whether or not the leader of the country we are fighting in is an ally:

White House won’t say if Karzai is still an ally
By Jordan Fabian & Sam Youngman – 04/06/10 02:00 PM ET

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not say Tuesday if the Obama administration considers Afghan President Hamid Karzai an ally.

Gibbs criticized the Afghan president after Karzai took a shot at Western leaders and the United Nations for election fraud in his country during last year’s presidential contest.

Administration officials said Tuesday that they will continue to “evaluate” remarks made by  Karzai, and that the evaluation could result in Karzai’s May invitation to the White House being revoked.

President Barack Obama extended an invitation for Karzai to visit the White House on May 12, but that could be in jeopardy if Karzai continues to make “troubling and untruthful” comments.

Asked at the daily press briefing if the U.S. considers Karzai an ally, Gibbs said “Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan.”

Pressed on the issue, Gibbs said that “the remarks he’s made I can’t imagine that anyone in this country found them anything other than troubling…when the Afghan leaders take steps to improve governance and root out corruption, then the president will say kind words.”

Gibbs added that the administration will continue to use “stern language” with Karzai if it doesn’t take steps to root out corruption and questioned the rationale behind Karzai’s controversial statements.

“Whether there’s some domestic political benefit that he’s trying to gain, I can’t say,” Gibbs said.

So Karzai defends his country’s elections, and his own political credibility, from foreign attacks and demagoguery, and as a result Obama snubs him in what seems like a rather petty emotional response.

Maybe Karzai should start meddling in Obama’s election-status by pointing out that Obama’s own wife strongly suggested Obama was not born in the United States when she remarked that she and Obama visited “his home country in Kenya.”  Which of course is what the birthers who say Obama was not an American-born U.S. citizen have been saying all along.  Even the Associated Press at one point described Obama as “Kenyan-born” before it became inconvenient to so-describe him.

Given that Obama is becoming unglued over Karzai defending himself over attacks regarding the legitimacy of his election, it would be interesting if we could see how Obama would handle attacks over the legitimacy of his election.

In any event, things aren’t going so well when we have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in a country while our president openly doubts whether the leader of said country is an ally.

That was the first thing that went truly, truly wrong in Vietnam, you know.

How’s Obama doing in Iran?  Really, really bad.  It has become abundantly obvious that Iran WILL have nuclear weapons under Obama’s watch.

How does this Washington Times headline grab you?

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes

And what is Obama’s reaction to this intolerable and incredibly dangerous development?  Try acceptance.

I know, I know.  Iran was supposed to reflect upon the sheer, transcendent wonderfulness of Obama, and agree that Obama’s empty words really were more important than reality, and abandon it’s nuclear weapons program.  But somehow something went wrong in Obama’s calculation that Iran and the ayatollahs would decide to embrace Obama’s narcissism.

Who would have ever thunk it?

Oh, wait.  I would have.  I wrote an article in August, 2008 patiently explaining why a vote for Obama was tantamount to a vote for a nuclear-armed Iran.

In another August 2008 article predicting that “President Obama” equaled “nuclear Iran,” I wrote:

This is the question that will effect – and possibly haunt – American foreign policy for generations to come.

If we elect Barack Obama, we are tacitly choosing to allow Iran to develop the bomb. Any of his tough-sounding rhetoric aside, you need to realize that Barack Obama has already repeatedly philosophically condemned the very same sort of preemptive attack that would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Heck, I can go back to April 2008, when I was already explaining why electing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton over John McCain guaranteed a nuclear-armed Iran.

When Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the world will dramatically change.  We will not be able to control this rogue terrorist nation – a nation with a radically apocalyptic view of the world – which has repeatedly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.”  When Iran develops the bomb, they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz and shut off the oil supply, skyrocketing gasoline prices to over $14 a gallon.  When Iran gets nukes, it will be able to launch a global terrorist jihad without fear of being attacked.  When Iran has the bomb, it will result in a nuclear-arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world.

Ultimate Armageddon will be guaranteed when Iran gets the bomb.  And it will get the bomb because of Barack Hussein Obama.

How about Iraq?  Well, things are hardly looking up there under Obama, either.

A few weeks ago, Joe Biden was ridiculously asserting that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  What was asinine about that statement was that it utterly ignored the Bush administration, that deserves all the credit, and instead assign credit to two men who foolishly tried to undercut everything that Bush did which led to the success we attained in Iraq.

But things were clearly going well in Iraq, such that Joe Biden tried to steal credit for it.

Not so much now.

From the New York Times:

Baghdad Bombing Streak Stokes Fear of New Round of Sectarian Violence
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and YASMINE MOUSA
Published: April 6, 2010

BAGHDAD — Deadly blasts shook Baghdad for the second time in three days on Tuesday, deepening fears of a new outbreak of insurgent and sectarian violence.

At least seven bombings of residential areas of the Iraqi capital, both Shiite and Sunni, killed 35 people and wounded more than 140. The violence came against a backdrop of continuing political instability after March 7 parliamentary elections left no single group able to form a government, forcing a scramble to form coalitions.

A similar political void after the 2005 parliamentary vote preceded Iraq’s bloody sectarian warfare of 2006 and 2007, from which the country has only begun to emerge.

There are also new concerns that Iraq’s army and police may drift back into sectarianism.

It’s logically impossible for the Obama administration to one day say Iraq will be one of their “greatest achievements,” and the next day blame Bush for the failure of Iraq.  That said, I guarantee you that that is precisely what Obama will try to do if Iraq turns sour on him.

Ayad Allawi, the likely next prime minister of Iraq, had this to say only yesterday:

ALLAWI: The process of democracy where you would have a stable Iraq is being hijacked.  And because it’s being hijacked, it’s going to throw this country into violence. And once this country is thrown again into violence as before, then this will spill over to the region and vice versa. Problems around the region will be transferred here also.

I bold and red-font the statements that it is “being” hijacked.  It is something that is beginning to happen just now.  And Iraq is being “thrown again into violence as before.”  Obama can’t blame Bush for this increasing violence.  He can only blame himself (not that he ever actually WILL blame himself).

We are beginning to escalate our withdrawal out of Iraq, and lo and behold, the Islamic jihadists are determined to make it appear as though we are withdrawing with our tails between our legs.  They are also making it rather obvious that when we leave, they will be present to fill the newly created vacuum with their poisonous presence.

Allawi is pleading with the United States to discontinue the timetable for withdrawal and remain through this difficult period.  But the report by correspondent Dominic Di-Natale concludes by saying, “Ayad Allawi’s call for a troop withdrawal suspension will fall on deaf ears for the time being even if it is a serious plea for help. ”

One of the fears is that Obama is tunnel-vision focused on getting the hell out of Iraq, and is ignoring the delicate state-of-affairs there.

So how’s Obama doing in Afghanistan, in Iran, and in Iraq?  Pretty darn horrendously.

An article that encapsulates the Obama disaster of a foreign policy is “The Karzai Fiasco” by the Wall Street Journal.

Advertisements

Musharraf Resigns, Leaving Comprimise As Pakistan’s Official Policy On Terrorism

August 18, 2008

The most strategically critical American ally in the war on global terrorism is gone, having announced his resignation today.

Coming on the heels of the Russian invasion of Georgia – and the resulting reawakening of tensions between former superpower rivals, this news further escalates the awareness of the stark realities of the 21st century. And it will all-too shortly be followed by Iran – protected by Russia from international sanctions – developing a nuclear arsenal.

It might be a good development for Pakistan, but I believe time will prove that it is a bad one for the United States and for those who would fight to defeat the rising threat of Islamic terror.

The Associated Press story by Zarar Khan at least presents some of the key issues:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced Monday that he will resign, just days ahead of impeachment in parliament over attempts by the U.S.-backed leader to impose authoritarian rule on his turbulent nation.

An emotional Musharraf said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done “was for the people and for the country.”

“I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes,” Musharraf said in a televised address, much of which was devoted to defending his record and refuting criticisms.

Musharraf dominated Pakistan for years after seizing power in a 1999 military coup, making the country a key strategic ally of the U.S. by supporting the war on terror. But his popularity at home sank over the years.

While political exit robs the West of a stalwart ally, Musharraf’s influence has faded since he stepped down as army chief last year. Washington and European capitals will hope his removal will let the civilian government focus on terrorism and the country’s economic woes.

Many Pakistanis blame the rising militant violence in their country on Musharraf’s alliance with the U.S. His reputation suffered blows in 2007 when he ousted dozens of judges and imposed emergency rule. His rivals won February parliamentary elections and have since sought his ouster, announcing impeachment plans earlier this month.

As Dinah Lord put it:

Protesters took to the streets of Lahore to denounce President Pervez Musharraf over the wave of jihadi suicide attacks, labelling him a “dog” and a “pimp” for his policies against the militants that have provoked the violence.

And now the Pakistani government is free to continue its new policy of compromise and appeasement with terrorism unabated.

Some articles essentially present a sterilized, optimistic account of how this new policy of “negotiation” will alleviate the terror threat.

But Hot Air is already showing just how full of, well, hot air such views really are. Citing a new sharia-based edict from the Taliban that all men grow their beards or face “harsh punishment,” Ed Morrissey goes on to write:

Not surprisingly, the Taliban and its leaders feel freer to issue — and enforce — such strictures in the area that Pakistan has all but conceded to them. Nor has it bought any peace for the residents of Waziristan and NWFP. AFP reports that “activities” against hair salons and music stores have increased since the military has stopped its operations against the Taliban.

Sovereignty requires a government to exercise its authority over that of militias and renegades. The abdication of those responsibilities in Waziristan and NWFP calls into question whether these territories can actual be considered Pakistani. That was one of the underlying principles of the Bush Doctrine after 9/11, and why Pervez Musharraf always understood that he had to at least give some effort in fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in these regions. Otherwise, the US could consider Pakistan as having withdrawn from the area and our hot-pursuit needs would then take precedence.

The new Pakistani government has obviously not learned much of the lessons of appeasement since the 1930s. If they continue to refuse to recognize the danger of their policy and allow these lunatics loose in the frontier regions, the US has to make clear that we do not consider ourselves bound by that decision.

And that is precisely true. If these terrorists are not killed or defeated, and if they do not disband or renounce their extremists views, then how can anyone believe that they will somehow go away?

They will continue to remain in their strongholds, continue to fester like the cancers on humanity they are, and will continue to grow in strength until the weak, corrupt national governments are no longer able to contain them. As Morrissey points out, most of these “negotiations” are already completely empty.

The increasing unrest in Afghanistan is not the failure of American troops; it is the failure of Pakistan to effectively deal with the Taliban forces infesting the border regions.  Musharraf had to negotiate with them when he was weakened by domestic political turmoil; and now a “Democratic” government that is split between rival factions will be in an even more weakened position.  The Taliban will undoubtedly take this opportunity to spread their ideology both within Pakistan and into Afghanistan.

Perez Musharraf was a tough leader, even a dictator. But it takes a violent man to deal with violent people, and too often we are seeing that Islam represents the deification of violence.

Giving bad people the right to vote doesn’t lead to good consequences simply because they are part of a “democracy” now. They are merely free to exercise their power to choose and support evil policies. We’ve already seen that in the Palestinian territories, which used their “democracy” to elect hard-core terrorist organization Hamas.

John Quincy Adams knew what he was talking about when he said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Another statement, generally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, builds on this foundation: “America is great because she is good, and If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

The founder of Christianity was Jesus of Nazareth. He told his followers to put away their swords. The founder of Islam is Mohammad. He taught his followers to take up their scimitars. The literal-historical exegesis of the Bible leads to peace; the literal-historical exegesis of the Qu’ran leads to submission by any means necessary. Mohammad was involved in dozens of military campaigns, during which he ordered acts of great violence. He had over twenty more such campaigns planned at the time of hid death.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi builds a case based on study of history, the Qu’ran, and the Ahadith to demonstrate that Mohammad progressed through four stages on violence, beginning with when his followers were few and weak and progressing as they became more numerous and more strong.

Stage One: No Retaliation
Stage Two: Defensive Fighting is Permitted
Stage Three: Defensive fighting is Commanded
Stage Four: Offensive War is Commanded Against the Pagans, Christians and Jews.

The Muslims of today are clearly increasingly progressing toward their “highest” stage.

The terrifying truth is that as Muslims are becoming more “Muslim,” they are becoming more violent.

How does compromise with people who are determined to kill you and destroy your freedoms and your very way of life work?

I end with this: Dinah Lord’s blog had a counter. Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 11671 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

The American way of life has often been stated as “Live free or die!” Islamic terrorists are only too happy to grant us the second condition if we attempt to pursue the first.