Obama -- Disengaged, Delusional, or Diabolical?
President Obama’s reactions to recent terrorist attacks have been the source of some consternation among many who have been following these attacks. While it is becoming increasingly more difficult to disregard the terrorist nature of these events, Obama has certainly given it the old college try, doing his best to change the subject to gun control or alleged climate difficulties. In a recent TV discussion of Obama’s effort to change the subject in this manner, Charles Krauthammer suggested that Obama was either disengaged or delusional. But in fact, "diabolical" may be the better term. But Obama may have foreseen just such happenings when he informed us that it was his desire to “fundamentally transform” America. No one thought at the time that he might have in mind the weakening of America to the point of our being so vulnerable as to possibly being taken over by an Islamic caliphate that his neglect had made possible. And while this may seem far-fetched, let’s take a closer look at what Barack Obama and his feckless former secretary of state have accomplished in just seven short years.
Shortly after taking office (and not long after his “fundamental transformation” speech) Obama flew to Cairo to deliver an apology and a loving outreach to Islam -- going so far as to suggest that Islam has deep roots in the USA. As recent events have made clear, there is no question that they are buried deep in the soil of the Obama administration. One very stark example is the Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all Islamic terrorist organizations; it is banned in Egypt, its birthplace, but welcome in the White House.
Moving right along, Obama has always been desirous of closing Guantanamo Bay, arguing that its existence is a recruiting tool for Islamists -- although he never demonstrates why this is so. Are we to assume that throwing these barbarians in American jails -- where they can really do some active recruiting -- sits better with ISIS? This position is preposterous, but, then again, preposterous is the order of the day when it comes to Obama’s foreign policy -- you know, leading from behind, strategic patience, soft imprint, all slogans to cover up for not leading at all. In any event, consistent with his desire to close Gitmo, he has been systematically downsizing the facility by returning the less dangerous barbarians to “safer” places in the Middle East (are there really safer places in the Middle East?). In this regard, his arrangements with respect to the Bowe Bergdahl transaction, the American deserter soon to be court-martialed for desertion -- i.e. exchanging 5 extremely dangerous terrorists for one American traitor (a win-win for the enemy) is typical of Obama’s fecklessness.
The greatest American recruiting tool ISIS has is our feckless leader, Obama -- because weakness is the greatest recruiting tool an enemy can have, and no group of people is more aware of this than the Arabs, who firmly believe in a “strong horse” approach to violent confrontation. Weakness emboldens one’s enemies, and draws possible recruits to their ranks, and it is hard to imagine a weaker leader than we now have, in the person of Obama. For an excellent elaboration of this point, I strongly recommend a book by Lee Smith, The Strong Horse -- Power, Politics, And The Clash of Arab Civilizations.
Throughout his tenure, Obama has made it clear that American exceptionalism is to be denied at all cost; we are no more exceptional than any other country, and our imperialistic and hegemonic tendencies are to be reined in. The only problem with this approach is that America is the preeminent world leader, and when it steps back from its natural leadership role, it creates a vacuum, one that the world’s most dangerous and corrupt elements are only too willing to fill. Witness what has happened in Libya, Egypt immediately after Mubarak was deposed, Syria, Yemen, and, on a larger scale, Russia’s moves on the Crimea and Ukraine, China and the South China Sea, etc. Taking even a sympathetic approach to Obama’s handling of foreign policy, one might not be too wide of the mark in suggesting that what he had in mind re a fundamental transformation was bringing America low, i.e. that contrary to Krauthammer’s more generous assessment of Obama’s actions as “disengaged” or “delusional,” he is doing exactly what he set out to do -- destroy America.