Monday, January 11, 2016

Obama's Foreign Policy Explained...Sort of.

Like most sane Americans, I've been wondering what the hell our Administration has been thinking in terms of foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.  Lets briefly look at what has happened, under Pres. Obama's watch:

Egypt
We start with the Obama/Clinton support of the efforts to remove Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian strongman who was also an ally to the United States.  After turning their backs on a long-time US ally, the administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who began to enact a strict sharia-compliant, Islamist government in Egypt, a seeming contradiction to their campaign promises.  Not only that, but the US sent several pieces of top-notch military weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood.  When the Egyptian military, led by current president al-Sisi, toppled the MoBroHood, our administration gave a pseudo-hissy fit.  They still haven't warmed relationships with al-Sisi (who has been working with Jordan and other Arab nations to actually defeat ISIS).

Libya
After Egypt and Tunisia fell to the "populist" forces of the Arab Spring, Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddhafi, was the next figure to feel their wrath.  Gaddhafi was, like Mubarak, a US ally in the War on Terror having given valuable information on al Qaeda and other groups.  On the heals of a made-up report of atrocities by Gaddhafi forces (in other words, a lie), the president authorized (illegally, I might add, but John Boehner was too concerned about looking nice that he didn't do anything about it), air strikes on Gaddhafi targets and supplying weapons to "moderate rebel forces". Of course, as the fighting continued, those "moderate rebel forces" actually were identified as al Qaeda affiliates (in other words, foreign enemies of the United States, which makes the effort to supply them, according to the definition in the US Constitution, "treason"), and we continued to supply them anyway.

**Side note, and partially relevant: investigate reporters have identified two significant storylines concerning Libya.  First, Gaddhafi and the European nations had come to an agreement rather early on in the conflict which would have provided a peaceful transition of power from Gaddhafi to a secular group.  The agreement needed US approval, and the US did not approve, and continued to supply the "rebels" with arms and air-support.  Eventually Gaddhafi was murdered.  Second, recently released information, noted by The Blaze's For the Record investigators, link the US's attempt to remove Gaddhafi with a Pan-African movement that included a single gold-backed currency for all of Africa.**

Syria
Soon after the Arab Spring set Libya on fire, the inferno engulfed Bashar al-Assad's Syria.  Of course, unlike Libya, in which the rebel groups morphed into radical Islam-centered groups, the insurgency in Syria was initiated by the terror-inducing Islamic groups, like al-Nusra Front, and was supported by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In a typical about-face, the Obama administration (which was friendly with Assad prior to the "Arab Spring") sought to remove Assad.  While not getting approval to use force, the president decided to send arms to the "moderate Syrian rebels".  That conflict is still on-going, and we know how that turned out: "moderate Syrian rebels", which were basically jihadist terror groups with a good PR team, obtained US weapons and continued to terrorize the Syrian countryside, while the Syrian forces fought back, likewise terrorizing the countryside (though the non-Muslim residents say that Assad's forces were much less terror-inducing).  From the "moderate Syrian rebel" forces sprung ISIS, which soon captured huge swaths of land in both Syria and then Iraq, further deteriorating an already nasty situation.

Iran
While ISIS terrorized the entire Middle East, threatening innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria and murdering non-combatants from other countries, our president's biggest concern was lifting sanctions on the completely untrustworthy and incredibly belligerent Iranians, allowing them to "legally" obtain nuclear weapons in a few years (if not earlier).  Even when it was abundantly clear that Iran, before even signing the "deal" had violated several provisions, the president did nothing.

Putting it all together
There are a good many theories behind what has transpired.  

1) Its all about the money...well, Saudi money.  Saudi Arabia has been HUGE financial supporters of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (well, her "Foundation", which is really, it appears, looking like a slush-fund).  Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabist (Sunni) Islamic nation, with some of the most sharia-compliant legal codes in the world.    In all areas where the "Arab Spring" occurred, secular governments that suppressed Islamic fundamentalist groups were in power.  These governments proved to be less amenable to Saudi demands, most especially Syria.  With Saudi-backed Sunni groups in control, Saudi Arabia could extend its oil and gas hegemony into Europe via a pipeline, and thus break Russia's stranglehold on the O&G markets. Further, Gaddhafi nationalize Libya's oil industry.  With a Sunni government, the Saudi's could, essentially, control that oil as well.

2) Gaddhafi's economic policies threatened to cost global bankers huge sums of money, so he had to go.  It just so happens that Obama is closely linked with several officials of global financial institutions.  In this scenario, Barry's big donors would serve to lose billions if a gold-backed African currency arose.  This, of course doesn't explain Iran, Syria, or Egypt.

3) Obama's puppet master, Valerie Jarret has both Iranian connections (she's Iranian born), and MoBroHood connections.  Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, Huma Abedin has family members that are MoBroHood officials.  Thus, our administration followed policy that would benefit those non-American interests.

None of those, however, explain the ENTIRETY of events.  But there is something that connects all of them, and even includes domestic issues as well.  I thought of the idea while listening to Rush Limbaugh (which I don't do very often).  It wasn't Rush's idea, but a caller.  I don't exactly remember what he said, but it got me thinking about Marx' Communist Manifesto.  Marx believed that the Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, obtained their material wealth and success by exploitation, oppression, theft, etc.  Essentially, no wealth, according to Marx, could be obtained lawfully or legitimately.  Thus it was imperative and justified for the "Workers of the World, UNITE!!" to overthrow the bourgeoisie and fix society.

Strict Marxism isn't found much anymore.  Modern Marxists took the fundamental theories of Communism and spread them to nearly all walks of life: "liberation theology", "Marxist feminism", "Marxist race-theory", etc.  There is even a foundational theory among sociologists called "Conflict Theory" that is based on this idea of Marx's.  

Marx divided history between the "haves" and "have nots".  The "haves" universally obtained their success through oppression and malfeasance at the expense of the "have nots".  The only way to fix this problem is to forcibly remove the fruits of that success from the "haves" and distribute it to those who were oppressed.  

Using these ideas, lets apply them to the current administration.  First, the obvious: the US.  Since the late 1800s, and throughout the 20th Century, the US has been the World's Superpower, especially since after WWII.  According to Marxist thought (and the President and all his administration were taught by Marxists), this success could only have been obtained through illegitimate means: all American success is ill-gotten.  This is the main reason why the president isn't concerned with "America winning", and why he apologizes every chance he gets.  He is actively trying to build up those nations (like China) whom he thinks the US victimized in order to reach Number 1, while at the same time, denigrate the US.  But it goes beyond that.

Since the end of the 1700s, Islam and Muslim nations have been dominated by Christianity and Christian nations.  Intellectually, the great Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna have been overshadowed by Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kant, etc.  Great scientific discovery was found in Christian nations, by largely Christian scientists (the monk Gregor Mendel was the first to manipulate genetics, Jesuit astronomers confirmed Galileo's supposition that the galaxy was helio-centric, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, as well as the calculus he developed, were the result of his belief in God) while scientific advancement that originated within Muslim lands is scant.  Aside from those advances, Christian nations had a much higher standard of living due to their modernized economic systems, and their military capabilities were vastly superior.  Rather than attribute the bulk of these differences to ideological differences between the two cultures/religions, Marxists like Obama and Clinton attribute these differences to purposeful oppression on the part of Christians (Marxism is inherently atheist: no religion has any importance, other than its usefulness in keeping the people mollified by their bourgeois controllers).  As such, Christianity and Christians must be taken down a notch or two (or destroyed completely, because Christianity is inherently opposed to Marxist presuppositions), and Islam and Muslims must be brought up.  Groups that have particular success or notoriety (such as the Catholic Church) will receive greater scorn and derision among the Marxist Left (hence the "contraception mandate", and groups that have "suffered" the most (like Shi'a Iran), must be supported the most.  Here is the glue, or underlying principle, of Obama's foreign policy: the support of Islam and Muslims at the expense of Christianity and Christians.  

This should be quite clear in many cases.  Take Egypt to start with.  Mubarak was a secularist, and under him, Coptic Christianity (which dates, like many Syrian Christian communities and many Eastern Catholic communities to the century after Christ) grew, while radical Islamic groups were suppressed (the MoBroHood was illegal under Mubarak).  To a Marxist, this is unacceptable.  By getting rid of Mubarak, the radical sects were given free-reign to terrorize the people, and it should be of no surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood made it policy to terrorize Christians.  Islam, in Egypt, was being allowed to dominate.

In Libya, the proposal that would have let Gaddhafi go peacefully allowed for a secular government to be established, and radical Islam would, again, be "oppressed".  While not the only reason for allowing Gaddhafi's murder, it was a factor.  There is a reason why the administration rushed to support radical Islamic "rebels" in Libya after a lie was propagated, and why it continued to support to radical Islamists after a less bloody path presented itself.

ISIS presents somewhat of a challenge here, unless you know your Middle East and European history.  At the tail end of WWI, the British and the French sought to remove the Ottoman Empire from the war so they could focus all their efforts on Germany.  To do so, they needed the support of the Arab princes.  Among them, it should be known, "Islamic fundamentalism" was already strong and thriving: the "radical Islamic" movement of Wahhabism began in Arabia in the late 1700s as a counter to the decline and "heresy" of Ottoman Islamic practice (namely, the cessation of the use of armed jihad against the infidel--the Ottomans had been making treaties and deals with Christian nations for centuries).  The British sent "Sir Lawrence of Arabia" to get the tribes on their side.  To do so, Lawrence promised the princes that they could establish their own state in the place of the Ottomans; the Arabs wanted a caliphate.  However, unbeknownst to Lawrence, the British and French reached an agreement, referred to as "Sykes-Picot" (or officially "The Asia Minor Agreement"), which established British and French "spheres of influence" over all formerly Ottoman lands.  It was further agreed that steps would be taken to prevent the establishment of a single, large, powerful and exclusively Islamic state (also know as a "caliphate") in the future.  To a Marxist, Sykes-Picot represents nothing more that Christian-capitalist oppressive imperialism into the Middle East.  To this end, the President will do nothing of any consequence, because a strong Islamic state is not a bug, its a feature.

Iran is a particularly interesting case.   The president has thrown, it seems, all his support behind the anti-American, anti-Israel mullahs in Iran, even against allies such as Saudi Arabia (we still haven't ceased the lifting of sanctions in response to Iran's actions against our ally Saudi Arabia).  Seeing as the President was raised Sunni, and Iran is Shia, AND that Saudi Arabia both supports the president AND Hillary Clinton, the president's support of Iran makes no sense.  Well, almost no sense.  Iran is predominately Shi'a Islam, which is not only a numerical minority within Islamic groups, but an intellectual and political minority as well.  Shi'a scholars have been neglected for their more famous Sunni counterparts, and Shi'a kingdoms have almost always been inferior to Sunni kingdoms.  The historical Persia, once the greatest empire on Earth, has been a historical backwater for centuries.  If a Marxist MUST choose sides between Muslim factions, the Shi'a would seem to be the most ideologically pure choice.

Syria is vital to the emergence of Saudi Arabia into the European O&G markets.  Currently, Russia, a Christian nation that has been actively re-Christianizing itself and linking its national identity with the Russian Orthodox Church, is (and has been) the dominant O&G force in Europe.  Thus, it is necessary that Assad be removed, so Saudi Arabia can establish a sympathetic Sunni radical government that will bend to its wishes...in order to raise Saudi Arabia up at the expense of Russia.  You cannot mention Syria without the Syrian "refugees".  Glenn Beck started the Nazarene Fund to permanently relocate Christian families from Syria and Iraq to more favorable countries.  Nearly all the strongest and wealthiest European nations, the ones who have thrown open the doors to the Muslim "refugees" that have started riots and raped their women, refused any Christian refugees.  Even our own government has refused asylum to nearly all Christian or Yazidi applicants, while granting nearly 100% of Muslim applicants (with, it seems, little to no vetting).  ISIS has expressed an interest in removing Christianity from its region, and it appears that the Progressive, Marxist powers are in complete agreement.

Now, of Russia, this needs said:  Much has been made of Russia's forays into the Crimea, and its conflict with Ukraine, and it should be noted that much of that is oil and gas related.  There exist large gas-plays in the Crimean Sea, which could be vital to Ukraine's economic growth...as well as Russia's.  There is a reason why the President played golf while Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea, and was engaged in a proxy war with Ukraine (I contend that Russian forces were NEVER engaged with Ukraine, but rather, Putin "donated" Russian equipment and advisers to the Russian-sympathizers, while many Russian citizens "volunteered" to fight on the sympathizers' behalf).  Currently, the US, thanks to major shale-gas plays in the Marcellus Region in the Northeast US (which many experts suggest could power the world for 50-100 years by itself), dominates the natural gas market.  Allowing Russia and Saudi Arabia to gain market share while at the same time making life difficult for oil & gas development in the US would accomplish two goals at once: denigrate the US economy by giving up market share, all while giving Russia and Saudi Arabia "their fair share".

 Summary--Boy is it needed
Certainly, political considerations cannot be ignored.  I'm not saying that Obama and Clinton have engaged in everything they have with the primary objective being the support of traditionally "oppressed" groups at the expense of traditionally successful groups.  I'm saying that as underlying Marxist mentality that says all success is ill-gotten and must be rectified is most certainly influencing everything that has gone on.