I saw this gem from one of our frequent commenters.
Fucking nonsense. Obama has been much more hardline and effective in the fight against Islamic extremists and terrorists than any president in history, including Reagan.
I have to agree, at least in part. I must admit that the current Occupant, 1600 PA Ave, Wash DC, and his krewe have indeed been uniquely effective regarding engaging Islamic extremists and terrorists. Let’s discuss his and his regime’s amazing record of success here.
1. Inherited a stable situation in Iraq, with functioning government, a low-level of insurgency, and relative peace. And just look at Iraq today!
2. Took over a manageable conflict in Afghanistan. Initially ignored good advice (Afghan surge recommended by McChrystal), then implemented a variant later. Things have only gotten better there in the last 6 1/2 years, right?
3. For political reasons (or possibly out of pure spite), failed to obtain an Iraq SOFA allowing a residual US presence in that nation.
4. Ignored warnings concerning possibility of rise of ISIS/ISIL/whatever the hell they’re calling themselves today during Iraq SOFA negotiations. Coupled with #3 above, this led to the rise of ISIS. ISIS now controls about half of Syria and around a third of Iraq; the Iraqi Army and government are now barely credible.
5. Appears to have based US strategy on countering Islamic extremism on “support for local populations” and clandestine armed RPA strikes. Yes, the latter has been of minor military value – but it’s been at least as counterproductive, if not more, in terms of creating hostility to US efforts due to occasional erroneous strikes. It’s also handed a major propaganda weapon to Islamic extremists for only marginal military gain. And it’s almost certainly undermining the Pakistani government in the eyes of the Pakistani public, since each uninvited strike in Pakistan is a demonstration that the Pakistani government cannot control its own territory and airspace.
6. And that “support for local populations” thing, AKA the “Arab Spring”? It’s led to a chaotic Libya with at best a marginally effective central government and parts dominated by al Qaeda allies; the ouster of stable, pro-Western governments in Tunisia and Yemen; and nearly resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood taking over freaking Egypt. It also led to protests/unrest short of regime change in numerous other countries friendly to the US: Bahrain, Morrocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Oman.
7. Dithering over Syria – e.g., being at first afraid to do squat, then drawing meaningless “red lines”, providing support to feckless “moderate” Syrian opposition that was in turn largely handed over to Islamic hardliners (al Nursa), and wasting $500M with the net result of training 50 troops. But no fear; all will turn out well.
8. And don’t get me started on the 5-for-1 trade with the Taliban for the knowing return of an apparent deserter – followed by feting said apparent deserter and his family at the White House.
Yeah, all of that simply screams “hardline, effective countering of Islamic extremism”, doesn’t it?
The author of the comment above is correct. The current gang of feckless fools and tone-deaf tools running things in DC since January 2009 Administration has indeed been singularly effective while engaging Islamic extremism.
Problem is, it’s been almost uniformly successful from the perspective of the Islamic extremists. From the US perspective, it’s been a nearly-uniform series of failures.
My reaction on reading that comment? “Son, I want some of whatever it is you’re smoking. That must indeed be some ‘really good sh!t’.”
