The Collapsing Obama Doctrine

As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama's past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda. "If a J.V. team puts on Lakers' uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant" (January 2014). "[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated" (August 2013). "So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding" (September 2011).

The Collapsing Obama Docrtine

Mr. Obama has told us he is "ending" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so

On a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, "Can you please explain what your president is doing?" "Why is he walking away?" "Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?" "Why is he abandoning your friends?" "Why is he doing deals with your enemies?"

Working With the Muslim Brotherhood

Member of Egyptian terrorist group gets meeting with White House senior officials

Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition

Obama adamantly defends Taliban prisoner swap that freed U.S. soldier

Obama: U.S. had responsibility to act in Libya

Back to the article:

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, "They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don't the Americans care?"

Does he care ?

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, "If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom." President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

History taught me that this below no longer exists in America.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4 This much we pledge—and more.

www.bartleby.com...

6 years of boneheaded move after another.

I know people hate Cheney. Feel free

But he is right about quite a lot there.

Never was so much lost by so few, and have so much more to lose.

Shameful that they stand by, and watch Rome burn as Nero plays the fiddle.

The barbarian hordes are at the gate.

They are knocking.

a reply to: neo96

It is all planned...........They want the sheep to beg and cry for some real change and the progressive PTB will give it to them. Men like Hitler,Stalin,Mao used this simple logic to get and keep power. Now the eyes are set on America the progressive brainwashing is paying off.

a reply to: neo96

The evidence is in his (Obama) own words.

He is "ending" the wars.

He's not winning them.

He's ending them.

a reply to: beezzer

Until they come here like they did in the 90s with the First World Trade Center Attack, and elsewhere in the world like our embassies like Benghazi, and Kobar Towers, and naval bases like where the USS Cole was.

He definitely didn't want to win them.

That would be 'American exceptionalism' in action.

And he can't have that.

What simplistic prattle. We should have NEVER gotten involved to begin with. Speaking of learning from history, did Vietnam teach us nothing? And then seeing the USSR bankrupt itself trying to fight a similar and unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Were we supposed to occupy these countries indefinitely? And then what, do the same for Syria, Libya, Lebanon, etc.? This was an epic CF from the get-go based on lies and cooked intelligence. Sure, a lot of rich white guys got richer on the backs of thousands of allied soldiers and who knows how many Iraqi civilians. If the Iraqi military is too gutless to fight for their own country then WTF should we? Paint Obama all over this if you have to in order to think you 'get' things but this situation was cooked long before he had anything to do with. He's in no way blameless but your assessment of the situation is sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: jtma508

What simplistic prattle. We should have NEVER gotten involved to begin with. Speaking of learning from history, did Vietnam teach us nothing?

Vietnam sure did teach us something.

That wars should never ran ran by politicians, and their decisions be based on nothing but politics.

Buy hey who cares right.

The intellectually dishonesty is ignoring pre-911 attacks in this country.

They have been here done that, and they are coming back for seconds.

originally posted by: jtma508
What simplistic prattle. We should have NEVER gotten involved to begin with. Speaking of learning from history, did Vietnam teach us nothing? And then seeing the USSR bankrupt itself trying to fight a similar and unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Were we supposed to occupy these countries indefinitely? And then what, do the same for Syria, Libya, Lebanon, etc.? This was an epic CF from the get-go based on lies and cooked intelligence. Sure, a lot of rich white guys got richer on the backs of thousands of allied soldiers and who knows how many Iraqi civilians. If the Iraqi military is too gutless to fight for their own country then WTF should we? Paint Obama all over this if you have to in order to think you 'get' things but this situation was cooked long before he had anything to do with. He's in no way blameless but your assessment of the situation is sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest.

Vietnam taught us that we can't win a war if we're concerned with winning "hearts and minds".

And if you aren't winning a war, then you might as well be losing it.

Bush screwed that up.

But it became Obama's responsibility when he took the oath and wanted to sit in the big chair.

This same op-ed was posted about yesterday here.

I'll say the same thing I said there:

Who cares what Dick Cheney has to say about anything unless he's going to admit to his own extremely long list of mistakes, lies, crimes, etc?

Dick Cheney has his panties in a wad because the public doesn't want anything more to do with BS "wars" (read: occupations) and failed nation building. We're not going to reshape the middle east by occupying it.. EVER.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Who cares what Dick Cheney has to say about anything unless he's going to admit to his own extremely long list of mistakes, lies, crimes, etc?

I care others do to, but hell nice deflection there.

Especially when incompetent foreign policy decisions have come back to haunt us, and been coming back to bite us in the snip for the last 60 years.

This is the one that has been the most epic failure of it.

originally posted by: neo96

Mr. Obama has told us he is "ending" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so

If wishes and dreams were horses and ponies, this adminsitration would ride like the wind.

Unfortunately, this is the real world and wishes and dreams are meaningless without men of action and intelligence to facilitate them. Not suggesting she'd have done much better, but Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head when she said Obama was in no way qualified to be president. His domestic policy is solely directed at buying a kept voter base and his foreign policy is the geopolitical equivalent of striking a wet match in a rain storm.

Worst president in modern history? Perhaps. Weakest, most substance-less president in modern history? Absolutely.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian

Who cares what Dick Cheney has to say about anything unless he's going to admit to his own extremely long list of mistakes, lies, crimes, etc?

I care others do to, but hell nice deflection there.

Especially when incompetent foreign policy decisions have come back to haunt us, and been coming back to bite us in the snip for the last 60 years.

This is the one that has been the most epic failure of it.

Who has been more involved in incompetent foreign policy decisions than Dick Cheney? How is that deflecting? He's got a long, well established track record. If Obama is wrong, that makes Dick Cheney right? Pffft.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Who has been more involved in incompetent foreign policy decisions than Dick Cheney

These guys?



Most of those are still in Washington DC.

Hell one was even made secretary of state, and other was made 'VPOTUS'.

Here is one the has the second secretary of state:



So they were 'for' war before they were 'against' war.

whatever the doctrine is at the moment...
"The Collapsing Obama Doctrine"

is being dissed by Iran right now...

it seems the Obama occupied WH regime is being admonished by spreading lies that both Iran & the USA are in concert going to deal with the insurgency in Iraq

Iran completely denies any consensus or bilateral cooperation... in fact they said the Revolutionary Guard ALONE is capable of dealing with the ISIL insurgency (iow... America keep out ! Youse guys are totally screwed up !)

use your search function... that report is probably buried deep by now, I read it after my jigsaw puzzle at 5 AM today




here's a speech by Maliki, a few hours old now, that accuses both Qatar & Saudi Arabia of plotting and executing the radical insurgency by IS
IL/Isis et al

time 1:51 : www.youtube.com...

see---> even the incompetent, Sunni hating Maliki knows it ain't a staged American false-flag... the radical fundamentalist sect desires to overthrow the whole ME/Arab Peninsula for a caliphate & to eradicate all Shia like "Iran"


AND...heres a clip, 2:00 ---> of Obama basically 'distancing' himself from taking Any US action to aid Iraq...saying "It is Your problem" now this sounds to me like waffling from taking a stand against the perp... which US intel probably already figured out is Qatar + Saudi Arabia

link: www.youtube.com...


connect the dots, they are not as flimsy as you might think

a reply to: St Udio

Wouldn't be the first time if it did happen.

US/Iran were on the 'same' side during Afghanistan in the 80s.

That pretty much caused most of our modern problems.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen, mostly composed of two alliances – the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight. The Peshawar Seven insurgents received military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[9] as well as weapons and billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.[3][4][5][9][26] The Shia groups of the Tehran Eight alliance received support from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Early in the rule of the PDPA government, the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organization also played a significant role in opposition, but its major force was defeated by late 1979, prior to the Soviet intervention

en.wikipedia.org...

This country needs to get it's head out of its snip with that asinine 'doctrine' of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' snipola.

The enemy of my enemy is my ENEMY.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: neo96

It is all planned...........They want the sheep to beg and cry for some real change and the progressive PTB will give it to them. Men like Hitler,Stalin,Mao used this simple logic to get and keep power. Now the eyes are set on America the progressive brainwashing is paying off.

geez...you people really think like this, don't you...

originally posted by: jimmyx
geez...you people really think like this, don't you...

Cloward-Piven. Look it up.

Anyone who believes ISIS was able to gather and take over large areas of IRAQ without the CIA and NSA knowing is dreaming. They knew they were marching.....gathering...on the move..

Thirteen years after 9/11, extremists have gained more power in the region than they ever had before the “Global War On Terror” began. The only question is why they were allowed to seize so much territory, particularly inside a country that was seemingly so important to the United States.

www.activistpost.com...

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran's arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

Also even though it would appear TPTB have backed off a full blown NATO sponsored take over of Syria do not think for one moment that is not still the end goal.

First, ISIS’ assault has not only allowed for the conquering of territory that will undoubtedly be used as a staging ground for further assaults against Syria by the terrorist organization but it also allows cover for ISIS to be armed with heavy military equipment such as tanks, Humvees, and possibly even helicopters as well as small arms and ammunition with which to harden its assault against the Assad government. Essentially, the recent forward march by ISIS allows NATO to arm the terrorist organization with such powerful military equipment without doing so openly in the eyes of the general public and the rest of the world.

We really do not know what is going on because we are not on the inside.. Anything we do hear is suspect because of hidden agendas which we are not privy to.

Heat seeking, fire and forget, ground to air missiles (which I have heard as many as 20,000) which were to be used against Syria, and before that Russia's aircraft may come back to haunt us..

Saudi financed much of the stuff (depending on what stage of the plan you look at) and before the USA/NATO pulled the plug on the Syrian Op was part of the grand plan.. Now it would appear TPTB have decided to ditch them and buddy up with IRAN.. Many stories about Saudi being pissed.. Again none of us really knows because we are not on the inside and can view the big picture.

There is much more to consider IMO than what we are seeing reported and written about. The big picture is hung in some puzzle palace hidden away from all but those who painted it.

n actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran's arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

ISIS is soley owned and operated by the House of Saud.

Finances In mid-2014, Iraqi intelligence extracted information from an ISIS operative which revealed that the organization had assets worth $2 billion USD,[68] reputedly making them the richest jihadist group in the world.[69] About three quarters of this $2bn came from assets seized after the group captured Mosul in June 2014, including perhaps $429 million looted from Mosul's central bank as well as a large quantity of gold bullion.[70] That will "buy a whole lot of Jihad", regional analyst Brown Moses wrote on Twitter, adding, "For example, with $429 million, ISIS could [recruit and] pay 60,000 fighters around $600 a month for a year."[70] ISIS has routinely practised extortion, by demanding money from truck drivers and threatening to blow up businesses, for example. Robbing banks and gold shops has been another.[71] The group is widely reported as receiving funding from private donors in Gulf states.[72] Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has repeatedly accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding ISIS,[73][74][75] although there is reportedly no evidence that this is the case.[76][77] The group is also believed to be receiving considerable funds from their operations in Eastern Syria, where the group has commandeered oil fields and engages in smuggling out raw materials and archaeological artifacts.[78][79] ISIS also generates revenue from producing crude oil and selling electric power in northern Syria. The crude oil is reportedly sold back to the Syrian government.[80] Since 2012, ISIS has been producing annual reports giving some numerical information on its operations, somewhat in the style of corporate reports, seemingly to encourage potential donors.[67]

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Financing Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[69] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[70] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[69] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[71]

The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores. Read more: www.upi.com...

Saudi Arabia now "has the opportunity to regain its leading role" in the region after it "subsided in favor of Iran and Turkey following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq," in 2003, observed political analyst Abdullah al-Shummari. Read more: www.upi.com...

At the one minute mark is all you need to know

a reply to: 727Sky


what I see revealed in your post is that the USA is no longer the 'big dog' on the porch...

sure the USA Intel likely watched in real-time as the Jihadists did their latest Death March to Baghdad
but were compelled to 'do nothing' by the Saudi Monarchy (or suffer the immediate death of the Petro-Dollar)