Sunday, March 20, 2011

The Inconsistent Foreign Policy Of Barack Obama

I am sure a few of my regular readers will disagree with me on this post. But nevertheless, I have to say some things about Libya and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.

Before we discuss Obama's usual inept handling of another foreign crisis, there are some inconsistencies we must think about... long before before we draw any intelligent conclusions. As in any case, there are things we know and things we don't. Let's start by looking at what we know.

We know that Obama likes dictators (at least the Latin American versions).

He loves Hugo Chavez. We all know Chavez fits the socialist model that the President was educated to believe in. We all know that Bro. Hugo is the modern-day replacement for Fidel Castro's failed leadership in Latin America, for failing to implement the true communist paradigm in Latin America.

We know that he loved former President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. You may remember him as the man who tried to illegally modify the Honduran constitution, so he could run for another term... for the purpose of implementing a Chavez style economic and political system. When the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya and his underhanded plan of action, both Obama and Chavez did everything they possibly could to subvert the rule of law in that country.

What we do not know is why Obama is not supporting dictators a half a world away in the Middle East.

He did not support Mubarek of Egypt during its recent popular uprising and by all appearances now, he is not supporting Libya's Muammar Gaddaffi in favor of another "so-called" populist uprising.

It's hard to make sense of this approach until we realize that Obama clearly has no consistent values or core principles. Then only thing consistent with Obama is, he will do what is best for Obama, and those who will help him. We do know that those who support Obama's Presidency the most are the people who have in years past advocated for revolution. Bill and Bernice Ayers are two names that prominently stick out, as well as many others.The people I speak of are those who follow the Alinsky model. They never want a crisis to go to waste and if there is no crisis, they can create one.

I firmly believe that at the time of Obama's election, there were unseen forces overblowing the economic crisis at the time, for the specific purpose of getting the man elected. Not that everything was hunky dory mind you, it was a downturn that was bound to happen and not be denied. But these forces used a complicit media (who merely wanted to see history made in the form of electing a black man as president) and all other means within their reach to drive the frenzy of what was then described as a looming depression never before seen. They made a bad situation even worse.

But to be fair about it, this goal and objective was set by forces much larger than Obama. I say this because as we see today, Obama is an extremely ineffective leader at almost every level. Instead of focusing on important things like the Japanese crisis, the Middle East, and important domestic issues, he plays golf, he fills out brackets, and he tours Latin America to create diversions from his incompetence as a leader.

In short, he doesn.t know how to manage a Burger King, much less a country. He is only a prop and a poor one, at that.

But back to Libya, and let me be blunt.

Obama and Soros Inc. want instability in the Middle East for the purpose of replacing the U.S. Dollar as the primary oil trading currency. Soros makes his money by getting currencies devalued, so it stands to reason that he may be hedging his bets on a new currency for the specific purpose of buying and selling oil. (Maybe if he is successful, we can call it the Soro. But I digress.)

So instability is their friend right now. Nothing can cause more willingness to change what has always been, except turmoil and fiercely uncertain conditions in such an important commodity. But as with every diabolical and contrived plot, there are strong possibilities of unintended consequences, which are not being thought about right now in the midst of this mess.

We are signing on to support the "so-called" pro-democracy forces in these nations where tyranny has reigned for so many years. But in the middle of this, we are failing to remember the Iranian Revolution.... whereby one form of tyranny was replaced with another.We are risking all of this for one man who had billions already, to stand the chance of making even more.

We are forgetting that groups that are supportive of al-Qaida (and the dangerous anti-freedom message of Muslim imperialism) is playing a huge role in these demonstrations. What makes us think that al Qaida will make a better form of government than the low-life tyrant we know as Gaddaffi?

Even more troubling is the liberal school of thought, that opportunistically used the Iraq War as political fodder against the GOP and George W. Bush, Now that Obama is President, they are magically supportive of a regime change in Libya and openly for these Sharia Law loving rebels taking control of the oil supply, in the Middle East. And Obama falls directly into this category. He and his Leftist friends questioned the use of military force to effect a regime change in a sovereign nation back then, But now it's okay.

In Iraq, we have spent much time in country and we sacrificed many American lives to see that these groups did not take control of Iraq. How is it that we can be assured this will not happen with no ground troops in Libya?

So to my friends who regularly read this sleepy little blog, I must ask you to think about some things in the closing of this post.

These people have never been able to handle freedom in the past. They seem to need authoritarian leadership of some kind or another. They are not doing well under dictators, but how well will they fare under the tyranny of forces that subscribe to harsh medieval conditions? Will they allow for free elections? I doubt it. Will they allow freedom of speech? Nope. Will they use their oil producing capabilities as weapons? You know they will. And they will use whatever profits they can make, to destroy all those who are not willing to submit to Allah (starting with Israel).

How will it affect other Middle East nations? Will Saudi Arabia fall next with encouragement and military help from the civilized world? Polls show that Osama bin Laden could win an election there, if there were elections. Would that be worth ridding that nation of the monarch whose hand was kissed by President Obama?

Most importantly of all let's think about one more thing. Knowing how ungrateful many people in the Arab world have been concerning the huge toll on American blood spilled to make Iraq free from a brutal dictator, do we really think Libyans will appreciate any effort the U.S. or its allies will put forth?

Personally, I think Gaddaffi is a thug, a creep, and a terrorist responsible for the killing of many of my countrymen. I think he deserves to be dropped into a pit full of hungry crocodiles. But I am not sure he is worth spilling any American blood over, especially when the Libyan people will very likely not appreciate any of it.


Chuck said...

We have no friends in the Arab world. If we could finally come to that inescapable conclusion we would be so much better off as a country.

There is no helping them, it is in their nature to bite the hand that feeds them. This isn't even their fault, it is a part of their collective culture.

They hate us. They always have. They always will.

They take our money but they think we are idiots for giving it to them (they are right on this BTW).

We need to get out of the Arab world. Do all that we can to protect Israel, tell the rest of them to go to hell.

Stop buying oil from them. Develop technology to use something else, drill for our own, buy it elsewhere else, but somehow get out.

Let them go back to their centuries-old tradition of killing each other. Let them sell sand to make a living. Let them go to hell. Who cares? Just get out.

Always On Watch said...

Now, the Arab League is complaining about the West's military action in Libya. See THIS.

An excellent essay you've written here, LA. I'll be linking to it tomorrow as "Today's Recommended Reading."

Always On Watch said...

You might be interested in this recent development.

LASunsett said...

I get what you are saying Chuck. I don;t know how many recipes they have for crude oil, but if it were up to me, they'd have to come up with some.

LASunsett said...


Didn't take too long for the Arabs to backtrack, did it? Maybe the change in objective is a result of an ass chewing of Obama by this man:

Always On Watch said...

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama were reacting to Farrakhan's criticism.

beamish said...

Lemme see if I gots this straight.

We're protecting the Libyan people from...

Muammar Gadhafi's air defense network?

Steve Harkonnen said...

Frankly amazed at how many of us are against this conflict we've found ourselves embroiled in...I thought I was the only crackpot agreeing with Moore.

A.C. McCloud said...

Personally I'm all in favor of taking out the terrorist Gaddafi with a smiling hellfire, but not 150 cruise missiles that could be used elsewhere. Then again let's face it--there is a lot of confliction on this
"Oddysey" thing from both left and right. I don't think president Waldo (as in, where's Waldo) did anything correct in this entire affair.

Obviously he coddles Chavez and Zelaya (and the quasi-Marxists he's visiting in SA right now) and not the Arabs because the latter form of dictator is not the socialist flavor.

LASunsett said...

There are 101 strategic mistakes being made on right now in this particular endeavor, both politically and militarily. We have to start the list off with France leading the charge. Once someone comes to grips with that one, the rest just fall into place.

conservativesonfire said...

An excellent essay.IMHO, I think you give Soros too much credit. I agree he is the puppet master over Obama; but, in spite of his wealth he also has masters. I believe he is controled by the families of the biggest banks in the world. They do want unrest in the Middle-East. They do want a new world order and a new reserve currency. They may even need war to achieve their goals. Mean while George will be allowed to make a few billion more on his investments in Brazil.

Rocket said...

My comment or repost disappeared. NO???

LASunsett said...


I never saw one from you. Let me look in my e-mail and see what happened. All comments get emailed to me.

LASunsett said...

Okay, Rocket...I see it in email. But one of two things could have happened:

1 It was too long.

2 There could have been something encrypted in the article that prevented you from copying and pasting it. Don't know if this is possible or not, but at the bottom of the article it posts a warning about pasting the text.

It says:

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from and redistribute by email or post to the web.

I dunno. Let me try to post it in another comment and see.

LASunsett said...

There it is, Rocket. Copied and pasted from the email. It worked. Not sure what happened. If you want me to, I will leave it up, or take it down. Your call, but it is pertinent so unless you object, I will leave it up....

I doubt FT will see this sleepy little blog, but if they do and raise hell about it, I will take it down.

LASunsett said...


It must be #2....because the damned thing disappeared. Just put up a link and we'll all go read it.

Rocket said...


try to do your best. But if they (FT) threaten to take your house then take it down. Don't worry I'll stand up for you in a court of law.

LASunsett said...

Well. I tried to put it up but it disappears on me too. Must be encrypted.

Rocket said...

The US have made 212 sorties since the start of military action against Libya. That's 2/3 of all sorties

France has made 55 sorties or 18% of all sorties.

Have I said enough. Can you put the pieces together.

America out of Libya now and let the French run the show. NO military alliances with the French period!

article in French but number are easy to understand

Avec 212 sorties, les Etats-Unis représentent près des deux-tiers de la totalité de l'engagement aérien, selon des données arrêtées à 19H00 GMT mardi.

Quant à la France, avec 55 sorties effectuées entre samedi 19 mars et lundi 21 et sept nouvelles mardi 22, selon l'état-major des armées, elle totalise ainsi 18% du nombre total de sorties.

LASunsett said...

But Rocket, think about this a minute. Is this any different than any other mission when the French and Americans have been part of a coalition?