Obama's Middle East Debacle

Obama continues to play a confused duplicitous losing "Game of Thrones" in the Middle East. ISIS has continued to expand the territory that it controls which has also created a massive refugee crises. In a very slow disorganized response, Obama has initiated some air strikes (which some assert are simply for show) and has deployed some advisers to assist the Iraqi military. The overall summary: "Too slow and too late".

Obama has also claimed to have formed a coalition of various nations to fight ISIS. This coalition appears to be a sham. Beyond the obvious phot-op, the supposed members of the coalition have apparently not made any commitment to supply ground forces to combat ISIS. The situation in Iraq and Syria continues to deteriorate.

The monumental flaw is Turkey. Turkey (a supposed ally) has been acting in a manner supporting ISIS. Turkey has refused to allow the US to use its bases to conduct operations against ISIS. But wait, Susan Rise claimed that an agreement was reached. A success for Obama, no.  Turkey immediately refuted that claim. The Obama administration once again can't get its act together. But I digress from the major significance of Turkey in this ongoing Middle East saga.

Turkey a supposed ally and supposed member of the Obama's faux coalition refuses to participate in the fight against ISIS. Rather than fight ISIS, Turkey has actually bombed the Kurds within Turkey. What gives?

Turkey is on the side of ISIS since ISIS is accomplishing Turkey's dirty work of "ethnic cleansing" of Kurds and Christians. Turkey has had a long history of human rights abuses against the Christians and Kurds.

u-tube video: Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew feels Crucified 
  
Turkey’s violations to human rights towards Kurds: A hindrance on admittance to the EU

Besides the issue that Turkey is really not a friend of the US, the actions of Turkey highlight  Obama's duplicity and repugnant moral relativism. Obama has used his "loudspeaker" to insist that Assad be removed from office in Syria asserting that Assad has "killed his own people"  and that the so-called Syrian "freedom fighters" should receive training and weapons. Well, if that is the case, then Obama should be publicly demanding for the removal of Erdogan and the arming of the Kurdish "freedom fighters". So far, Obama has been silent on Turkish "ethnic cleansing".

As an additional comment concerning Obama shallowness; Obama has labeled Putin's actions in the Ukraine as a violation of international law. Obama's actions toward Syria are just as illegal since Obama is interfering in Syria's sovereignty.

To restore some semblance of a coherent Middle East strategy, the US must support the Kurds and must use its military, economic, and diplomatic power to require any Islamic based regime to be secular and to guarantee human rights for all citizens within their respective countries.

Obama Plays "Game of Thrones"

Obama has failed playing the "Game of Thrones" in the Middle East. Obama has illegally interfered in the sovereignty Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Furthermore, Obama has two bad uncooperative puppets. Maliki in Iraq and Karzai in Afghanistan. Finally, Kerry, the US Secretary of State, failed miserably at attempting to negotiate a cease fire between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. 

Obama's meddling in these countries has result in ongoing civil strife including a continued humanitarian disaster. Even the Washington Post finally acknowledged: "Libya crumbles as the United States looks the other way". More relevant to current events, the Post noted that "The Kurdish forces facing the Islamic State need help from the United States". Today, Obama finally announced limited aid and limited military assistance for the Kurds, Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic/religious groups being marked for genocide by the Islamic State. Ishaan Tharoor wrote in the Post: "As The Washington Post's Loveday Morris reports, as many as 40,000 remain stranded on "the craggy peaks of Mount Sinjar," dying of hunger and thirst and devoid of much support from a faltering Iraqi government."

While Obama is finally getting around to countering the ISIS advances, it is also Obama who facilitated the rise of ISIS by supplying (illegal) covert aid to so-called rebels in Syria. ISIS having been one such group. Had Obama supported the Assad regime, even if it is considered deplorable, the rise of ISIS may never have occurred as the Assad regime may have been able to neutralize ISIS. By destabilizing Syria and weakening the Assad regime Obama made a strategic blunder.

It would be ludicrous to place all blame on Obama for the chaos in Middle East since there are many players involved in this "Game of Thrones". Nevertheless, Obama meddling in "Nation Building" and "King Making" make him partially responsible for endless war and the ongoing humanitarian disaster.

Obama Responsible for the Pending Demise of Iraq

Obama has fostered the events leading to the pending demise of Iraq. This is a very CasualObservation based on conjecture.

Obama for many many years has been publicly calling for the ouster of Assad. On one hand Obama asserts that he is not after regime change, but on the other he has been calling for support of the so-called rebels in Syria. Clearly Obama is after regime change.  Just today, the Washington Post published: "Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels".  Given the chaotic situation in Syria, how does Obama intend to restrict this proposed assistance to only "good" rebels?

It will be virtually impossible. The "good" and "bad" rebels for one switch sides. Even if they don't, what is to stop the "bad" rebels from acquiring equipment through theft or other means? Even NPR noted that some of the assistance to "good" rebels fell into the hands of "bad" rebels. "A shipment of Croatian weapons sent to moderate fighters, with U.S. knowledge, a year ago, ended up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked groups." But I am digressing from my topic that Obama's actions have led to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (also called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)) "invading" Iraq.

Really this is quite simple. Obama by destabilizing Syria and supplying covert assistance to Islamic radicals in Syria enabled ISIS to expand and form "safe areas" in Syria. From those "safe areas", ISIS was able to grow to the point that it could invade Iraq.

On June 22, 2014 I stumbled upon a CNN interview between Candy Crowley and Rand Paul. I was quite amazed that Rand Paul had already reached the same conclusion.

PAUL: ... But now we have a chaotic situation.  We have a vacuum.  And I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies.  We have been allied with ISIS in Syria.  They have had a safe haven because we have been arming the rebels to keep Assad away from them. ... 

Then today, on MSNBC, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) acknowledge that the growth of ISIS was an unintended consequence of the support that the ISIS received from various countries. Utube video here: "Rep. Schiff Discusses Situation in Iraq on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports". 

American Prosperity ran the following article: "Militant Islamic Group ISIS Trained at U.S. Base in Jordan". (The validity of the story by American Prosperity is unknown to me.)

Jordanian officials recently revealed that members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also known as ISIS) were trained in 2012 by U.S. military instructors at a secret base in Jordan. 

Of course, this raises the obvious question: Why did the American military train dangerous Islamic militants?

Answer: Because they were being trained with the intent of overthrowing the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad.

Jordanian officials claimed these Syrian rebels were screened to ensure they had no ties to Al-Qaeda or any other overly radical Islamic group. They also said that this training had no intention of being used in Iraq. 

However, these good foreign policy intentions have backfired on the Obama Administration in a big way. Especially since the President declared an end to combat operations in Iraq nearly four years ago.

Obama, through an ineffective foreign policy and through support of the so-called rebels in Syria has abetted the rise of ISIS and contributed to the pending demise of IRAQ.

Ukraine/Syria - US Foreign Policy Madness

Russia invades Crimea (located in the Ukraine) and attempts to destabilize the Ukraine as an independent sovereign country, in clear violation of international law. The Obama administration with great indignity and fanfare accuses Russia of interfering with Ukrainian sovereignty. But wait!

The Obama administration is violating the sovereignty of Syria in clear violation of international law by arming supposed rebels in Syria. Washington Post article: "Syrian rebels who received first U.S. missiles of war see shipment as ‘an important first step’". Essentially both Putin and Obama are reading from the same foreign relations script. Both falsely justify the need to interfere in other countries based on fabricated trumped-up moral obligations. Putin to "protect" Russians, Obama to "protect" Syrian civilians from an evil tyrant.

Obama in denouncing Russia once again utterly demonstrates that his rhetoric is nothing more than meaningless hot-air. Obama, like Putin, does not feel constrained by any laws. Laws are simply something to be whimsically applied and/or ignored as needed for political purposes. For Putin, the persecution of the band Pussy Riot. For Obama to use the IRS to persecute the "Tea Party".

Russia needs to be denounced for violating the sovereignty of the Ukraine. With that in mind, the US has no business arming so-called rebels in Syria since it is a violation of Syrian sovereignty. Arming the so-called rebels is Syria keeps the war going and only prolongs the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. That is blatantly contrary to Obama's publicly disclosed assertions that he is not pursing regime change in Syria. Obama has once again demonstrated to the world that his flowery rhetoric is devoid of both value and substance, and that the rule-of-law does not apply to him.  Obama cannot be trusted.

Neel Kashkari - Blame Bush Resurrected?

Neel Kashkari, a Republican candidate for the Governorship of California, recently made an outstandingly idiotic comment on CNBC.  The recent Republican fiscal stance has been been promoting spending control and reduction of the National debt. Joe Kernen asked Kashkari, given that California now has a budget surplus, if some of that money would be used to pay-down California's debt.  The response by Kashkari was the unbelievable prostration that economic measures were needed to stimulate the California economy. A non-answer to Kernen's question. The "between the lines" take-away, another excuse not to address the debt issue.

Mr. Kashkari, is only one Republican and does not define the Republican party's fiscal policies. Nevertheless, his comments, may be a chilling harbinger of what might happen should the Republicans take control of the US government. Will the Republicans, like the Democrats, abandon fiscal responsibility in favor of continued deficit spending to "gift" their base "freebies"?  Will the Republican, once elected, repeat the irresponsible tax policies of Blame Bush?

PS: I could not locate the actual video clip were this exchange took place. Here is one clip from that day.  I would agree that high frequency trading should be regulated.