That’s the gotta be the headline of the Democrat Socialist Decade, right there.
There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.
The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.
And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.
Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.
Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.
When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.
Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.
In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.
The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.
Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.
And all of a sudden, it all makes perfect sense–which brings us right back to the CF Rule: assuming the absolute worst about Obama is the only way to make sense of his seemingly nonsensical and incompetent actions. You might consider it somewhat related to the idea of Occam’s Razor, that’d be close enough. It also brings us right back to another rule of thumb I’ve established: before we can ever even dream of defeating the Moslems, we’re first going to have to crush the “liberals.”
Update! Steyn ties it up with a not-so-pretty black bow:
ISIS is not itself the cause of the problem. What ISIS is is the most effective vehicle for the cause – which is Islamic imperialist conquest. What ISIS did in the Paris attacks was bring many disparate elements together – Muslims born and bred in France, Muslim immigrants to other European countries, recently arrived Muslim “refugees”… An organization that can command numerous assets of different status – holders of 11 different passports – and tie them all together is a formidable enemy. Playing whack-a-mole on that scale will ensure we lose, and bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Meanwhile, the caliphate is coining it: ISIS is the wealthiest terrorist organization in history, making billions of dollars a year from oil sales, bank raids, human smuggling, extortion and much else. So they have a ton of money with which to fund their ideological goals.
And yet, as I say, ISIS is merely the vehicle for the ideology, which in the end can only be defeated by taking it on. You can’t drone the animating ideas away. And the biggest obstacle to a vigorous ideological pushback is the west’s politico-media class – Obama, Kerry, Merkel, Cameron, Justin Trudeau, etc – who insist that Islam and immigration can never be a part of the discussion, and seem genuinely to believe that, say, more niqabs on the streets of western cities is a heartwarming testament to the vibrancy of our diversity, rather than a grim marker of our descent into a brutal and segregated society in which half the population will be chattels forbidden by their owners from feeling sunlight on their faces.
But best not to bring that up.
No, best not. We lost this war a long time ago; we’re just in the mopping-up phase now. Like I said already, it’s not going to matter how many of us they kill at a time now; the West is far too feeble to act in its own defense anymore, and doesn’t really believe it to be worth the bother anyway.
And truth to tell, given what we’ve become, it really isn’t; it was once, but not anymore. That’s the tragic part of it all. I mean, come on: does anybody out there really think an obnoxious fool like, say, Amanda Marcotte–or Obama himself, or Nancy Pelosi, or Alec Baldwin, or that silly, irresponsible twit of a Paris dad deceiving his son by telling him flowers are going to “protect” him–is worth one drop of anyone’s blood? Is anyone really all that disturbed by the prospect of these absurd muttonheads having the full weight of their folly dropped squarely on their empty heads, right where it belongs? Does anyone think it’s worth stepping up in solidarity with a nation whose duly-elected “leader” said this mere days after another horrific Moslem massacre–the second in under a year, ferchrissakes?
“Life should resume fully,” Hollande told a gathering of the country’s mayors, who gave him a standing ovation. “What would France be without its museums, without its terraces, its concerts, its sports competitions?
“France should remain as it is. Our duty is to carry on our lives.”
In the same spirit, he added, “30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment,” explaining that they will undergo vigorous security checks.
Hollande noted that “some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds,” but called it a “humanitarian duty” to help those people … but one that will go hand in hand with “our duty to protect our people.”
They will assuredly NOT go “hand in hand.” They are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Why in the hell does anyone think France (or the US, for that matter) has any “duty” at all, humanitarian or otherwise, to protect foreign nationals from their own government?
And speaking of that “duty,” of that “moral obligation,” could there be a sharper, more infuriating irony than being lectured on “American values” by a lying, callow, America-hating Leftist douchebag like Obama?
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.
Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission
must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.
There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.
For Obama, no lie is a bridge too far when it comes to destroying America and rendering it defenseless before its enemies. Sounds a bit harsh, maybe, but once more I commend your attention to the CF Rule.
Let Obama bring in his hundred thousand “refugees.” Ship ’em straight to DC. Then build a wall around the shitpit, and don’t let a single soul out. That oughta fix pretty much every problem we have, all in one fell swoop.