Advertisement - story continues below
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, noted the following in regards to President Obama’s pro-Islamic policies during the Defeat Jihad Summit sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. The Admiral stated that Obama’s policies are “very simple, and any thinking American should be able to grasp it. It’s anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.” Bold as these comments may seem today, one only needs to look at Obama’s underlying belief that America has played a malign role in the world as our sins have been both of omission and commission.
Thomas Sowell writes “Obama, in his citizen-of-the world conception of himself, thinks that the United States already has too much power and needs to be deflated.” In viewing Obama’s repeated sacrifices of American national interests as deliberate, one can begin to understand the administrations’ anti-American foreign policy. No one defined Obama better than Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama’s view of America is one which we are apart of a “multi-polar world.” This is a world in which, “the American era is over as we become just one power in the great dining table of nations.” Seen through this lens, Obama’s “successes” become just as dangerous, if not more-so, than his failures.
In the early months of Obama’s administration he made sure that people in foreign capitals throughout the world knew he believed much was wrong with America as he went on an apology tour beginning on April 3, 2009 in Strasbourg, France. In his remarks to the people of France, Obama stated that, “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive even derisive” throughout our nations existence. He then explained that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was a “sacrifice of [our values] for expedience sake” while announcing that this was the reason he would be closing it. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values, and who we are. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of Guantanamo,” stated Obama, further claiming that enhanced interrogation techniques like those used at Abu Ghraib, “wasn’t good for our security — it was a recruitment tool for terrorism.”
Advertisement - story continues below
During the Question and Answer session afterword, Obama then went on to explain his view that if America would cut the size of its nuclear arsenal, Iran and North Korea would be convinced to abandon their ambitions. This was an early indicator the President always intended to bring Iran to the negotiation table with the skewed view that if we cut our own nuclear arsenal, then Iran wouldn’t pursue their own. Obama stated that America needed to “take serious steps to actually reduce our nuclear stockpiles” because doing so “would give us greater moral authority to say to Iran, don’t develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don’t proliferate nuclear weapons.” The obstacle to diplomacy for Obama was in fact, and has always been, America’s own strength. If our strength could be reduced, then we would have the “moral authority” to bring murderous regimes such as Iran into the “community of nations” by pursuing diplomacy backed by no actual hard power.
Obama’s next stop in his apology tour was in Cairo, Egypt in June of 2009 as he gave his infamous speech to the “Muslim world.” Acknowledging a strain between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama explained that the tension had been “fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” He then provided his perspective on a world order that was not based upon America’s own interest nor our strength as he noted that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership: progress must be shared.”
This “partnership” was exemplified in Egypt with the Obama administrations support of the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood as they overthrew Egypt’s President Hosni Murbark and put in place a member of the Brotherhood in Mohamed Morsi. It is important to note that Murbark had upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for over four decades until Obama came into office and supported his overthrow. In 2013, Egypt’s military ousted Morsi in the wake of massive protests by the Egyptian people, who regard the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorists that they are and despise Obama for his support of their plight. To show just how far Obama is willing to support the Brotherhood, on New Years eve of this year, Morsi’s successor, former defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, actually stood before the same podium that Obama once did in Cairo and called for an “Islamic reformation” throughout the world in response to the violence committed in the name of Islam. Sisi then went on to attend a Coptic Christmas mass in a symbolic show of unity with the Christian world as he was the first Egyptian leader to ever appear at a Cairo cathedral. Obama’s response to this was silence.
Advertisement - story continues below
Obama supported Morsi and didn’t support the people of Egypt when the people themselves wanted to combat the terrorism that Obama himself had help facilitate into a position of leadership. This was also the case in Iran in 2009 when the leaders of the Green Revolution, an uprising by the Iranian people against the rigged election that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back into office, plead for help to the Obama administration. In November 2009, leaders of the Green party, which had staged a revolt on the streets of Tehran in June of that year, sent a long memo through channels to the Obama administration in documents obtained by the Washington Examiner. According to the memo obtained by the Examiner, the Green party stated on November 30, 2009, that “at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.”
The eight-page memo described the current regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship”. The memo warns that Iran “with its apocalyptic constitution will never give up the atomic bomb, nor will it give up its terror network, because it needs these instruments to maintain its power and enhance its own economic and financial wealth.” The administration claimed in 2009 that the Green party in Iran did not want American help, a lie that was perpetrated in order to secure the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama officially “secured” last month. The point that cannot be underscored enough in this instance is Obama’s willingness to ignore the opportunity to overthrow the radical Mullah’s in Iran for the sake of securing a nuclear deal with said Mullah’s in the future.
This finally brings us to the Iranian ally in Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. When chemical weapons were used in Syria by Assad and Obama’s infamous red line was crossed, the president’s response was hollow and empty with a lack of resolve and conviction to back up the claim of holding Assad responsible. Little did we know the reason for this at the time was due to keeping the Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran alive. The repercussions of this also had the effect of opening a new found door for Russia to play conciliator and chief.
Vladimir Putin was able to protect his mutual ally in both Syria and Iran while also presenting himself as a “peacemaker” to the world by proposing a “diplomatic solution” in announcing Russia’s support for helping and brokering the plan for Assad to turn over his chemical weapons. The presidents stupefying walk-back from that red line, as well as his retreat from his earlier statements that Assad must go, “has sent an unmistakable message of American weakness to our foes,” states Melik Kaylan in The Russia-China Axis.
Advertisement - story continues below
Playing on the belief that the international community feared Assad could target chemical weapons inspectors acting in Syria, Russia was able to assert a deal in which Moscow says it was provided with significant responsibility over the skies of Syria, purportedly to insure against Assad’s air force acting against the international disarmament effort. An effort that in fact was brokered by Putin himself which has allowed him to “threaten retaliation against the U.S.” under the pretense that Syrian airspace is under Russian control. The vacuum that has been created in not only Syria but also Iraq is precisely due to Obama lacking the conviction and the fortitude to assert American power.
Leon Panetta, the president’s former CIA director and defense secretary, confirmed that due to Obama’s announcement of withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.” The terrorist group known as the Islamic State or ISIS, was in fact created because of both the actions and inaction’s of Obama himself.
In fact, a recently released Defense Intelligence Agency memo affirms that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset. The DIA report makes the following summary points concerning the general situation in an excerpt of the report which can be viewed in full by clicking here.
B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
(C)Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA.
8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
In an interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis and affirmed his belief that the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose. Flynn claimed that he thought “it was a willful decision,” on behalf of the Obama administration to basically create the Islamic State under the auspices of supporting the “Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad.
On the surface this may seem complicating but underneath all the spin what this means is that Obama is indirectly supporting al-Qaeda and the Islamic State by arming and training what he labels “moderate Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad, who is supported by both Russia and Iran. Now that Obama has guaranteed that Iran will retain the ability to create a nuclear weapon while he hands over more than $150 billion in frozen assets, we see that the culmination of his anti-American, pro-Islamic foreign policy has created a tinder box in the Middle East. And unfortunately for us here in the United States, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost as tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” are about to be welcomed and resettled throughout our country.
Yet, if you’re still not convinced that Obama’s polices are not only pro-Islamic but outright threatening to the safety of our country, consider what Obama has been working on in the background under his Foreign Fighter Task Force established by the Department of Homeland Security. This Task Force was created under the direction of Obama and according to the May 2015 Interim Report it’s goals are to rehabilitate and reintegrate into American society individuals who have returned home after having traveled abroad to fight with terrorist organizations such as ISIS. For example, one of the tasks outlined in the report states, “If ideologically-motivated individuals cannot be stopped from engaging in foreign fighter activity, what can the Department of Homeland Security do to ensure these individuals do not engage in violence within their communities upon re-entry into American communities?”
The report further notes “incidents involving returning foreign fighters will require a comprehensive holistic community approach, to include families, educators, faith-based organizations and networks, civic groups, health and social professionals.” In short, this “Task Force” will be used as a justification by Obama to not only succeed in fulfilling his goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, but also in bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” who cannot be properly vetted.
As Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Mag writes, “more Muslim refugees mean more terrorist attacks. It is an inescapable fact of history. We would not have Muslim terrorism without Muslim immigration. And the Muslim refugee terror wave of the past is even more likely to be repeated by groups of Muslim migrants coming from a war zone.”
The question that we need to be asking is not will Obama’s pro-Islamic policies kill Americans, but how many will they kill until the American people begin to wake up and realize that our government, our politicians, and our own president represent the greatest threat to our nations very survival?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.