Obama, the Peacemaker

On October 9, 2009, in an extraordinary decision, the Nobel Prize Committee announced that it was awarding its 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barak Obama. The committee cited Obama’s push for nuclear nonproliferation as a reason, as well a “new climate” that Obama brought to international relations, especially his attempts to improve relations with the Muslim world. The decision brought praise from Obama supporters and further strengthened his “messiah” status with many, but for others it was an incredibly shortsighted decision based on no accomplishment and only a simplistic hope for the future.

Obama was the man that was going to end America’s “cowboy” shoot from the hip image, and bring about world peace with his brilliant diplomatic skills. He was going to bring Iran to the table and talk them out of their nuclear weapon’s program. He was going to show the Islamic nations they had nothing to fear from the United States. He was going to bring about peace through his soft and compassionate tone.

What has happened since has shown how naïve those expectations were.

Obama campaigned for president condemning President Bush’s war in Iraq and declaring that his own plan of troop reduction would have American forces withdrawn by 2008. Once elected, however, he allowed the troops to be withdrawn on essentially the same time schedule that Bush had laid out, finishing operations in 2011. The War in Afghanistan, the “good war,” which then became Obama’s war, has continued on endlessly with a troop withdrawal not planned until 2014. Seventy-four percent of American casualties in the twelve-year-old war have come under Obama’s watch.

Iran has not come to the table, its nuclear ambitions continue, and the North Koreans have exploded an atomic weapon. Al Qaeda, in spite of Obama’s declaration that it is as good as defeated, is a greater threat today than it has ever been, the Middle East is in flames, and no one fears America anymore. They don’t respect America either.

Obama turned his back on Hosni Mubarak, America’s only solid Muslim ally in the Middle East, encouraged the revolt that overthrew him, and praised the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood for holding “democratic” elections. The winner, Mohammed Morsi, then set about implementing Sharia Law in Egypt, something the Egyptians were not willing to abide under, and in less than a year he was overthrown. So much for that experiment in democracy.

Obama, without the consent of Congress, illegally ordered US forces to participate in the overthrow of Moammar Khadafy in Libya, even though Khadafy had given up his nuclear ambitions and had behaved himself for some time. Ironically, Obama gave the order only after NATO nations had already attacked Libya and Khadafy was on the run leading to late night TV jokes of Obama’s leading from behind.

His only real accomplishment in foreign policy has been that he got bin Laden, a military operation rather than a diplomatic one, and something he has touted over and over again to make sure nobody forgets. As soon as the deed was done Obama and Biden publicly outed Seal Team 6, the Special Forces unit that actually got bin Laden, information that should have remained classified, and the exposure of which led to an ambush of a Chinook helicopter carrying several members of the team resulting in all of their deaths.

A civil war erupted in Syria against the tyrant Assad and has been going on for two years. When he had a chance to help the rebels early on Obama did nothing. Now elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda have gained control of the rebel efforts and the quandary is whether to help an oppressive dictator or the terrorists that oppose him who we are actually at war with ourselves.

A year ago Obama stated that if Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels that would be crossing a “red line” and could not be tolerated. In April when the first use of chemical weapons was revealed Obama downplayed it saying there wasn’t enough proof. But now there is undeniable proof according to the Secretary of State, John Kerry, that sarin gas has been used. Obama’s hand has been forced. In order to maintain any credibility he must act. But that brings to question the logic in Obama’s red line. Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian civil war, but it was only the use of chemical weapons, which resulted in the deaths of a few hundred, that caused the red line to be crossed. Why? What about all the other tens of thousands killed? Don’t they matter too?

In Russia Vladimir Putin scoffed at the idea that chemical weapons have been used and warned Obama not to interfere. China issued the same warning, but last Saturday Obama decided it was necessary for the United States to take action. Then, while on the verge of starting World War III, he went out to play golf.

Obama’s diplomatic prowess, whatever it may have been, is no longer working as not one single nation signed on to help in an effort against Syria. Not even our closest ally, Great Britain, would step up. Neither would the US Congress, and when Democrats started insisting Obama had to have Congress’s approval, and some Republicans started talking about impeachment, Obama temporarily, at least, backed down, leading to scorn from Assad and the rebels, and leaving the world laughing at his inability to make not only command decisions, but intelligent ones.

Now it comes out that the most recent gas attack, the one Kerry is proclaiming to be the absolute proof, did not come from Assad’s forces. Rebels had been supplied with chemical weapons from a Saudi prince, but not knowing what they were, and not having any training in their use, they wound up gassing themselves. Does this mean that both sides have crossed the red line? And what about the Saudis? Have they crossed the red line as well? Now if Obama decides to reorder an attack the question is who should he strike?

And that brings up still another question. Remember when President Bush was trying to get support for the Iraq war and then Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the evidence showing Iraq developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction? Democrats as well as Republicans, even the United Nations, were convinced and supported the attack on Saddam Hussein. Just before the invasion began, however, long convoys of trucks were seen night after night in satellite imagery moving across the desert and into Syria. When no chemical weapons were found in Iraq, Bush’s opponents immediately began crying foul, but the question has always been whether or not those convoys took all those chemical weapons over the border into Syria.

The follow up question is obvious: Where did Assad get his chemical weapons? If he got them from Iraq then Bush was telling the truth and the Iraq war was justified.

In the meantime, the world is falling apart while Obama plays another round on the links. The messiah who was going to bring about world peace by his mere presence on the stage has utterly failed, but he apparently doesn’t think it’s important enough to interrupt his golf game. Maybe it’s time for the Nobel Prize Committee to make another extraordinary decision and demand Obama give their prize back. The new climate he has brought to international relations is a spreading firestorm with no peace in sight.