In 2008 Obama seemed like the perfect front Washington's neocons and liberal interventionists could only dream of but results have been less than stellar
Back in 2008, I suppose that the neo-Trot Warlords that now run America were cock-a-hoop at the election of the man who rose from relative obscurity to the Presidency (NB. Can people stop referring to those people as neo-conservatives. Real conservatives conserve things. That’s obvious isn’t it? These revolutionaries do the opposite. That’s obvious too, isn’t it?).
Here was a guy who was young(ish) and hip(ish), and what is more, he also appeared to be a one-man principle-free zone. Perfect! A true frontman who could be manipulated to continue the march to Full Spectrum Dominance, without being challenged overmuch. Oh, and he also happened to be a whizz on the teleprompter.
Well, things went well for a time for the Warlords, and their frontman did them proud. In fact, unlike his predecessor, who would probably have struggled to spell the word teleprompter, let alone read from one, and who incurred the wrath of the anti-war brigade for apparently being a “conservative” (I’m still wondering what he actually conserved), the new guy could pretty much get away with anything.
He destroyed Libya creating a failed state and a vacuum for Islamists to fill. He kept the Guantanamo Gulag open. He allowed the CIA to smuggle arms from Libya through Turkey into Syria to aid yet more Islamists. His Government funded and supported an armed coup in Ukraine and blamed what followed on someone else. He continued those special relationships with certain nations of the Middle East that wanted to replace the secular government of Syria with a Salafist state, through which they could pump their oil to Europe. Oh and he drone-bombed some folks.
And almost nobody took him to task. Was it because he has brown skin and there is the fear of being accused of racism (that would be ironic, would it not, since that would be measuring a man by the colour of his skin, rather than the colour of his actions)? Was it because he is a “Democrat”? Possibly. Was it because he never actually “invaded” anywhere, unlike his predecessor, but instead bombed and covertly regime-changed some folks? Probably (that’s a British legal term meaning “definitely”, in case you didn’t know).
But whatever it was, the neo-Trots must have been delighted. A man that they could manipulate to do whatever they wanted him to do, and who was basically given a free pass by the Servile Media.
But what happens when a hip, Principle-Free frontman comes up against a country that is determined to put the brakes on the Adventures of the Warlords and their march to Full Spectrum Dominance, and has the means to do it?
Well, it means that suddenly more and more people begin to wake up to the fact that the Emperor is naked, and when that happens the Emperor is forced to make a choice between crawling under a rock somewhere, admitting his part in the whole calamity, or doubling down on the hubris and conceit. His recent Q&A session at the ASEAN conference in California left keen naked-Emperor watchers in no doubt which of the three options he has chosen. Here’s a sample:
“But it’s hard. I’m under no illusions here that this is going to be easy. A country has been shattered because Assad was willing to shatter it, and has repeatedly missed opportunities to try to arrive at a political transition. And Russia has been party to that entire process.”
Ah, so nothing to do with the US Government’s support of regime change in a country that is thousands of miles away from its borders and nothing to do with it? Nothing to do with the CIA programme to arm and train those fine “moderate” chaps who just happened to end up in those “not-so-moderate” terrorist groups? Nothing to do with his Government’s unqualified support for Turkey and Saudi Arabia as they basically created what became known as the Islamic State? No, it’s all someone else’s fault, and it would appear that Mr Obama has turned Presidential responsibility on its head, adopting the motto, “The buck stops with someone else”.
He also had this gem to offer:
“First of all, if you look back at the transcripts, what I said was that Russia has been propping up Assad this entire time.
The fact that Putin finally had to send his own troops and his own aircraft and invest this massive military operation was not a testament to a great strength; it was a testament to the weakness of Assad’s position.
That if somebody is strong, then you don’t have to send in your army to prop up your ally. They have legitimacy in their country and they are able to manage it their self, and then you have good relations with them.
You send in your army when the horse you’re backing isn’t effective. And that’s exactly what’s happened.”
So weakness and illegitimacy are inextricably linked are they? In the bizarre world that Mr Obama appears to inhabit, it seems that this is indeed the case. Had al-Assad been strong enough to crush the Islamists marauders sent in by our Middle Eastern “allies”, that would presumably have proven his legitimacy, no? But since he was unable, that proves his illegitimacy. Make sense?
Okay, now returning to the real world, let’s try his logic out in the history books. Just one example will suffice. When Poland was overrun by Germany in 1939, unable to “manage it their self” and in a position that was “testament to the weakness of their position”, was this was proof that the Polish Government had lost legitimacy? Under the Obama Guide to Sovereign Legitimacy, apparently so.
Then there was this:
“And, yes, Russia has a major military. Obviously, a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world. But that doesn’t solve the problem of actually stabilizing Syria. And the only way to do that is to bring about some sort of political transition.”
Ah, but if that “bunch of rebels,” which would include the “moderate” and “not-so-moderate” jihadists, are unable to stand up to the second-most powerful military in the world, how come the first-most powerful military in the world was unable to deal with them?
Could it be because the second-most powerful military in the world is working with the only ground force capable of defeating them – the Syrian Army –, whereas the first-most powerful military in the world had no intention of dealing with them but was actually willfully allowing them to grow in order that they might bring about the political transition Mr Obama speaks of – from secular to Salafist – by force?
You’d think that was quite enough drivel from one man in one Q&A, but no, he had more:
“Now, what I said was, is that Russia would involve itself in a quagmire. Absolutely, it will. If there’s anybody who thinks that somehow the fighting ends because Russia and the regime has made some initial advances – about three-quarters of the country is still under control of folks other than Assad. That’s not stopping anytime soon.”
Now I know next to nothing about military strategy, but what I do know is that controlling large swathes of desert with a sparse population does not necessarily equate to major military significance. But just about every reliable source I have read recently has confirmed that although the Syrian Army does indeed still control far less territory than the “other folks”, over the past few weeks the gains it has made have been of far greater strategic significance than controlling the desert, and it looks set to make even more crucial gains in the coming days and weeks.
Who briefs Mr Obama? I mean it’s one thing having a frontman to cover up your hegemonic ambitions, but you’d think that the Warlords would have enough sense to brief him on the situation in Syria, and some of the basic military truths there. Maybe they do, but his mind is out on the golf course.
Unfortunately, events over the last few months seem to have taught Mr Obama nothing. Far from learning humility and admitting the failure, the immorality and the illegitimacy of his meddling in the affairs of sovereign states, he instead ramps up the rhetoric, flounders about, and comes out with statements that make him look frankly unhinged. In my more charitable moments, I wonder how much he is just the prisoner of those around him, struggling to keep his head above water as the hopes and narratives of the Warlords crumble.
But then realism kicks in. He is the President, is he not? The buck does stop with him, does it not? And yet he chooses to cover up his Government’s diabolical policies with more conceit and buck-shifting than I can even begin to get my head around. The neo-Trots wanted Full Spectrum Dominance? Their frontman seems to have misunderstood and instead perfected the ignoble art of Full Spectrum Arrogance.