The Present U.S. Stance on Islamist Terrorism

In the wake of this week’s State of the Union speech, there were numerous comments by various groups and individuals commenting on the wide range of inaccuracies and outright lies that the speech contained. But one of the most important points was a failure to address the issue of Islamist Terrorism. In fact, signs of a weak or relatively non-existent interest in dealing with this threat have been in place for some time. This failure was simply the most recent in the trail of such behavior.

Another recent incident of the sort came in the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris when Obama scheduled a conference on “extremism” but failed to identify the perpetrators; apparently intentionally. Instead, he considers “global climate change” a bigger threat. But science, which he claims to follow tells us that there is nothing we can do about it because climates have changed during all of time from prehistory to today. It is, therefore, a convenient excuse and distraction from the real world. Simply stated, he doesn’t care a fig about Islamist violence, or perhaps he actually supports it.

A link to a recent article found its way to my inbox. It accuses the US of changing sides in the “war on terror” and was actively supporting Al Qaida in Syria and Iraq. The evidence is subject to a certain level of plausible deniability, or diplomatic discretion, but it is certainly not something that should be brushed off as foolish ranting. Several things support the suggestion that the public position is just posturing while something different is happening behind the scenes. A major sign of this came about in Syria just before the appearance of the ISIS entity. It involved the matter of Bashar al-Assad.

The truth is that Assad is no friend of the US or its putative allies. But the one thing that needed to be understood was his first priority; preservation of his regime and all that went with it. And this was something that should have made him relatively untouchable by US. Simply stated, Assad had created a relative island of stability in the region, which may have been overtly hostile in its attitude, but was no a threat to anyone to a serious degree, except, perhaps Israel.

When the “Syrian rebels” appeared there were instantaneous calls for diplomatic and military support from the administration because, supposedly, Assad was an enemy and a danger to the region. Then there were accusations that Assad was using chemical weapons against the “rebels” which were disputed and some support even surfaced for the idea that the “rebels” were using the chemical weapons and blaming the results on the Syrian Army. At present Assad is still in power but his regime has become increasingly unstable. It appears that he may be playing both sides against the middle as a strategy to remain in power. He appears forgotten by the US as its attention is now focused elsewhere and the danger he supposedly represented has evaporated along with the lack of attention.

At the same time Obama was backing a similar rebel group in Lybia against Muammar al-Gaddafi, who had previously been extremely anti-American, but had been defanged by Ronald Reagan via air attacks that scared him into silence. Gaddafi had become an eccentric dictator and a curiosity. Targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood during the “Arab Spring” he was deposed and killed by opposition forces who later attacked and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, apparently with Obama’s blessing, as he refused to acknowledge the attack as part of a pattern of terrorism sweeping the region, as part of a wave of Islamist zealotry that also, temporarily created an anti-western government in Egypt; also with Obama’s approval as his administration called the Muslim Brotherhood a “secular organization”.

As we look at the present state of affairs and the lack of progress against the Islamic State entity or in preventing Iran from obtaining atomic weapons, it becomes obvious that while Obama does not publically support such them, he does so behind the scenes. This is either because he has allegiance to them (and not to the USA), or his disdain for the USA is such that he is willing to throw his hand in with its enemies and the enemies of Western Civilization in order to see it destroyed.

When we examine his behavior in office it becomes obvious that either Obama is incompetent in representing US interests or is actively undermining them. If the former option applied, then there would be sufficient opportunities for attempts or actual successes to show. The only one that can be pointed to is the killing of Osama bin Laden, which was, in the end, a red herring. Bin Laden was washed up as a terrorist commander and other, more dangerous individuals had taken his place. His loss to the Islamists was negligible or non-existent.

But the chain of actions from the apology speech in Egypt through a failure to prosecute the defense of the United States effectively, despite advice to do so from the military, to the present state of affairs with his obvious hatred for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu who was invited by Speaker of the House Boehner to address Congress on the state of affairs with Iran, as evidenced by his reaction to the invitation. Obama obviously sees no threat from Iran, and is more than willing to allow it to go nuclear, regardless of the impact on world peace and on the US or its allies. More properly, Obama probably sees no threat to himself, and doesn’t give a damn what happens to anyone else. His anger at Netanyahu’s anticipated visit is at the sounding of alarm bells.

And the conference on “extremism?” This is another case of leftists using obscure language to make it look as if they are doing something constructive when they have no intention of doing anything about the present threat. It is also very likely that any US pronouncements that appear at this conference, if it does in fact take place will be aimed at anyone who opposes leftist governments and not at terrorists who further the interests of authoritarianism by providing excuses for decreasing levels of liberty in the name of security. Security, that is, for those in power, after all, the worker bees of the population are expendable.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner