Obama the coward? (Part II)
[NOTE: Part I is here. In it, I discuss the idea that Obama’s reluctance to go after ISIS is the result of cowardice, and I suggest that it stems from a strategic and philosophical group of motivations that I then describe. Here in Part II I offer an additional ideological reason that may contribute to why Obama isn’t going after ISIS. Now, it’s possible that he’s a coward, too—but I think it’s more important to understand the ideological underpinnings of his belief system, because even if he were not a coward I do not believe he’d be fighting ISIS more vigorously.]
I wrote in Part I yesterday that Obama still thinks ISIS is the jayvee. Here’s an article by Peter Beinart indicating much the same idea [emphasis mine]:
While Obama doesn’t say it outright, he appears to be subtly referencing Robert Pape’s influential argument that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation. Because Obama, unlike Bush and Rubio, believes the Islamic State is ideologically weak, he thinks America’s current strategy will eventually defeat it unless America commits a large occupying force, which would give the jihadists a massive shot in the arm.
The other unforced error America must avoid, according to Obama, is “letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.” Because the GOP candidates see violent jihadism as a powerful, seductive ideology, they think that many American Muslims are at risk of becoming terrorists, and thus that the United States must monitor them more aggressively. Because Obama sees violent jihadism as ideologically weak and unattractive, he thinks that few American Muslims will embrace it unless the United States makes them feel like enemies in their own country””which is exactly what Donald Trump risks doing.
Curiously enough, The Atlantic—where Beinart’s article appears—had earlier published Graeme Wood’s excellent piece on just how very appealing and seductive ISIS is to Muslims. Wood’s article presents facts that contradict what Obama is apparently saying and thinking according to Beinart. The Atlantic also kindly helps us out in realizing this by placing an interview with Wood at the end of the Beinart article, although I’m not sure why they did it. Note the part that begins at 2:59, in which Wood describes just how very attractive violent jihadism is to young people in Western countries. Perhaps Obama should watch, although I strongly doubt it would do a particle of good:
When I read the Beinart piece, I was intrigued by mention of that Pape book that Beinart said was so very influential. Seeing this summary of its main thesis, it seems to me that Beinart is almost certainly correct that Obama is basing his approach to ISIS on Pape’s book (which was written, by the way, back in 2003). It seems highly plausible that Obama encountered Pape’s thesis and that it really did influence him—and in fact, I discovered that Pape had been an adviser to Obama (and Ron Paul) in 2008.
Read the review and you’ll see what I mean (I have not read the book myself; I’ve only just heard of it). The thesis of Pape’s work seems to fit in perfectly with Obama’s predilection for blaming the US and the West for all the ills of the world, and blaming colonialism or occupation in particular.
Here are a couple of quotes from the description of the book:
…Pape articulates his belief that the popular conception of a “connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America’s situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly.” Based a detailed examination of every suicide bombing and attack by non-state actors from 1980-2003, Pape identifies several underlying trends. First, that there is little or no connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Second, that almost every attack is directed towards compelling modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that terrorists consider to be their homeland.
If the idea that Pape has influenced Obama is correct, it would seem that Obama may actually believe that that will happen if he just waits it out. It’s too good to not be true. It fits both his preference for inaction and his tendency to blame colonial westerners for the problems of third world countries, as well as reflecting his warm feelings for Islam and his disinclination to say that Islam is part of the problem. It wraps the problem of ISIS up in a nice neat ball that won’t require him to do anything that goes against the grain of his previous beliefs. In short, it’s perfect.
Here, Pape proposes a solution to the problem of terrorism, particularly suicide terrorism (which is hardly the only kind, as the Farooks demonstrated last week)):
…[W]e should affect a withdrawal from the Middle East and remove the reasons that Al-Qaeda has for attacking us. Now, in case you are worried, this is not giving in to a bunch of lunatics simply because if we do (even though historical examples prove otherwise) they might stop. Oh no, we should get out of the Middle East and resort to a policy of “off-shore balancing” where we attempt to exert influence without actual troops on the ground. Oh by the way, Pape thinks that energy independence would also be awesome. Along the way, Pape also discusses how we cannot possibly prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons so we should just try to talk them out of using them against Israel (who we should stop supporting so much because it makes Al-Qaeda really really really angry).
As I said, perfect.
[NOTE: If you’d like to see some criticism of Pape’s book, read this, this, and this.]
Here’s the thing. Even if Pape’s book influenced Obama’s thinking and approach it is clear to the entire world that it has FAILED. Pape’s theory doesn’t work. It loses.
Barack is a basketball player. He brought up the jayvee analogy. Let’s take it one step further.
Barack’s brother-in-law is Craig Robertson. He was fired as head men’s basketball coach at Oregon State for losing. (Including losses to Oregon; coached by former Creighton coach Dana Altman.)
Now it can’t be all that easy recruiting to Corvalis, but Robertson could not win. He was a bad coach.
In contrast to ISIS jayvee squad, the United States military is the greatest in the world. We have the best fighters with the best equipment. We are the NBA champs.
But Obama won’t fight. His ideas and coaching are all wrong. And the thing is even a grade school girls coach (like me) could win with an NBA team against a Class C Nebraska high school team.
Bottom line: Obama has the wrong ideas, probably is a coward and wants to run out the time clock with a stall until the next person takes over.
Craig Robertson won 46% of his games in six years at Oregon State.
Cornhead:
Yes, his ideas have failed abysmally. But he’s not the only one who holds such ideas. What would it take for him to abandon them? I don’t think anything would do it, unfortunately.
As I said, he may also be a coward. But that’s personal, and perhaps other liberals who might replace him wouldn’t be cowards. But if they hold the same ideas, their policies will effectively be the same.
Neo
Obama is extremely stubborn and he sees that as persistence and as a virtue. He is also in a liberal bubble and his crowd all agrees with him. And as with global warming, he thinks history will vindicate him in 50 years.
Altman was 6-2 against Robertson.
Olivier Roy: Jihadism as Nihilism, An X-ray Of Homegrown Terror in France
sdferr Says:
December 10th, 2015 at 4:03 pm
Olivier Roy: Jihadism as Nihilism, An X-ray Of Homegrown Terror in France
Good piece.
Remains, if the French women objected, there wouldn’t a Moooslime problem such as it is.
They don’t object and those who are public figures are rabid enablers.
The hoi polloi is not any better. You should see the Hot Pink Honey Sirup dripping out of those FaceBook pages … it puts Zuckerberg to shame …
Awww!: aiding and abetting …
Mark Zuckerberg
18 hrs · Palo Alto, CA ·
I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.
After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.
As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities. Even if an attack isn’t against you today, in time attacks on freedom for anyone will hurt everyone.
If you’re a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.
Having a child has given us so much hope, but the hate of some can make it easy to succumb to cynicism. We must not lose hope. As long as we stand together and see the good in each other, we can build a better world for all people.
Yes, Ron Paul is influenced by Pape. His embrace among libertarians driisven by anything but realism or reality testing.
The truth is they support their anarchist, radical antistatist fantasies in foreign affairs like the heroine dulls the pain for a cripple, with more! MORE!
Take my libertarian American history prof friend, David Beito at the University of Alabama, for instance. Pointing out the world-wide Jihad or the fact that Boko Haram in Nigeria (where there is no US involvement) is even more murderous than “JV” ISIS, doesn’t matter – it’s still all about “us”, the US – we created this “blowback.” The ludicrous “somehow” or “if only?” suffices to assuage any doubts for the True Believers.
I find such falsified and devoted “thinking” more risible than All Gore’s “the planet has a fever” and we’re all gonna fry! bumper sticker “thinking,” (currently in full fever in Paris).
Facebook Censors Michael Savage Post Of Muslims Protesting
There’ll be a reaction Zuckerberg … bet on it.
Regarding Mark Zuckerberg:
What a cynical statement. He wants those 1 billion customers who are Muslims. But there is no way a Facebook happens in the Islamic world. To make things even worse, the jihiadists would cut his head off in a minute.
He should have kept quiet. And stop worrying about the fear Muslims have. They are killing on a regular basis. Islam is dysfunctional.
This has the feeling of the James Buchanan Presidency – sticking you fingers in your ears and just hoping, hoping that nothing happens until your term is up. Keeping the analogy, I wonder if the Islamists would try something big if/when say Ted Cruz is elected & it appears the US will no longer sit on the sidelines – then again, ISIS claims to want a confrontation with the west so perhaps they would welcome that result.
As to Obama as a Pape disciple – wouldn’t that thesis then imply that the US would actually be doing nothing against ISIS. Granted, the ongoing action is more of a phony war than a real attempt at anything, but, for example, OBL was obsessed with the few US troops in Saudi Arabia so why wouldn’t this limited action against ISIS still cause the same resentment? What, Obama’s continual reference to them as ISIL and implementation of the stringent ROE that causes 75% of our air missions to come back with no bombs dropped is enough of a signal?
Or, assume the Pape thesis – ISIS & suicide bombings are our fault & our mere presence in the ME is a justified causis belli. Then, if one was the President, what would one do? Nothing, which is exactly what we did until ISIS became a real non-JV threat. However, I’m struggling to see how the current implementation of half-measures makes any sense if one thinks we are the problem, aren’t we just ginning up more terrorist & suicide bombers by getting involved (even partially) again? Is Obama going to say that the US citizenry forced him into it & it’s not his fault – given his track record, when has the popularity of something (outside of himself) played into his calculations/actions?
Do the colonialists/Islamists ever differentiate between small and large occupying forces/footprints? Isn’t just 1 westerner one too many?
As to Obama, there is too much intellectualizing, too much rooting around in texts as if this were a worthy scholarly exercise.
Obama is evil. He means us harm. ISIS is not the problem; it is Iran, which has dropped off everyone’s scope.
Obama is not out to get ISIS, never mind Iran. The US bombing interventions are pathetic, due to rules of engagement, with 75% of flights returning with full bomb loads.
Those who pay any attention to Obama’s words while ignoring his acts are fools. We here all know that, right?
So, to hell with how his mind works. What’s to understand?
Zuckerberg, for all his billions, is a typical Leftist Jew. And a young one at that. American Jews are next to useless on matters of government. I subscribe to Commentary, a nominally conservative Jewish journal, and its staff doesn’t understand American Jewish liberalism either.
Ahmed Moussa has strong opinions about Obambi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTwP_0zXQiw
Specifically Ahmed is referring to the Khazouk.
Procedural details here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=92b_1423373525
I concur with neo’s analysis of Obama. I’m fairly certain that Obama is indeed a physical coward and even if subtly, personal cowardice affects statecraft.
Such ‘logic’ was mainstream all over the Manoa area circa 1983, and the rest of elitist Honolulu, for that matter.
It was expressed then much more towards Iran — and how America was an abusive patron of dictatorships — with the Shah’s front and center.
The universal conceit at that time and place was that Liberalism would automatically progress even better without Liberal dictators to sully its purity.
As if Liberalism could gain ANY traction under Shariah.
Those looking for an Islamic reformation — have GOT IT.
It’s just not the liberal reformation that Christianity and Judaism passed through.
Muslims are trapped in a game of “Slides and Ladders” with very few foot stools and plenty of slides.
Hence, every reformation of Islam brings them back to Square One, the instruction manual of a sociopath.
As for disaffected losers — that well will NEVER run dry.
Frog writes:
” I subscribe to Commentary, a nominally conservative Jewish journal, and its staff doesn’t understand American Jewish liberalism either.”
Nor does its editor, John Podhoretz, get the Trump effect.
There is no bravery or cowardice at his level there is only calculation. he will not be killed if he guesses wrong, nor if he doesnt care about the subjects as people will he even feel bad, and so the only question for him is the calculation of the outcome of any move in terms of either self service or in service of another…
in these cases inaction is often the action one can take and not be blamed for. there are not too many examples in history noted for the bad of inaction that are remembered. with the biggest maybe being Nero and McClellan – but at least the latter might have been hot at and the former was enjoying the view in his diddling.
obama serves mother russia, and in this case doing nothing is the safest thing to do which will allow his comerades the most leeway in action without issue or games back and forth. a case of you dont bother us, we wont say inconvenient things about you. not to mention that we dont know if they have anything on obama that they would reveal inconveniently.
right now they mentioned using nuclear weapons, and if they did, it would not be strategic weapons but battle field tactical nukes… which would serve them quite well in destabilization and confusion.
so it has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice it has to do with the calculation and if he can figure out a path and thats only if he has to figure one and not be part of some plan that is going on related to his comment to medvedev or not…
I have no doubts, bho is a physical coward. Unfortunately, he is bold when it comes to pressing his agenda. So far, his game plan is on track to achieveing his goals. Islam invading the West, American leadership warming the bench on the sidelines, our economy teetering, crippling debt soaring, etc.
Pape confirms why Obama says ISIL. ISIS covers Iraq and Syria. ISIL refers to the Levant, which covers a much larger territory, including Israel. Obama is signalling to Muslims that he considers Israel part of the Levant, and therefore, Muslim territory.
I don’t trust anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth. It is all taqiyya to me.
I don’t think he is a coward in the sense that the question was posed.
His heart isn’t into going after ISIS because he is sympathetic to radical Islam. He proved it when he supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He proved it when he deposed Gaddafi. He proved it every time he snubbed or attacked Netanyahu. He proved it when Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israel and Obama wanted to halt arms shipments to Israel.
I do think he wants to destroy the American Dream. He’s over halfway there. That doesn’t take courage. It takes malice aforethought and complicity throughout the elite organizations of this country, starting with the Media but also including the likes of Google and Facebook.
>> “While Obama doesn’t say it outright, he appears to be subtly referencing Robert Pape’s influential argument that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation. ”
Well, believe it or not, the problem is not jihad, but occupation.
Both Obama and Pape are RIGHT, no matter you agree or you don’t.
The problem is, now that they have left Muslims enter the western world, they have claimed it. And we are, indeed, occupants.
Just remember that Middle East was mainly christian until a few centuries ago. This is the big elephant in the liberal room nobody wants to talk about. What Palestinians claim now, for example, was not Muslim neither Arabic until a couple of centuries ago. But once they enter, it becomes something they can claim rightfully.
Muslims still claim Al-Andalus, even if they were expelled one thousand years ago. For them, once a Muslim land, Muslim land forever.
So, yeah, Obama is right. It’s a problem of occupation. And we only need to withdraw from the Western World and then, everything will be Ok 🙂
Perhaps I look too much for conspiracy, but I well remember a good friend who described to me his training for an intelligence agency. He and his colleagues spent a lot of time learning tradecraft, of course, but the big lesson of his year-long training program was control: how to recruit agents, then gain and maintain control over them.
Imagine for just a moment that Obama is not his own man, but is being controlled by someone close to him who is in the employ of a foreign power. Someone who can control him daily without others near him wondering why he is pursuing policies that no one in his cabinet recommends or understands.
We can parse his actions, try to understand who influenced him in college, wonder if Frank Marshall Davis turned him into a communist. But perhaps the real question is, does Obama spend more than a few minutes a day on his day job? Does he devote hours a day watching sports on TV as has been suggested by a few who have been close to him, and just wait for his controller to tell him what to do? Does he skip his daily intelligence briefings because he doesn’t need to know what is happening in the world — because someone else will tell him what to do anyway?
I know, that story has already been told and it was a Grade B movie at that. But just imagine, if a Muslim operative who is in the background at virtually all times were calling the shots, and another operative from the same organization were already in place to do the same with Hillary, how would we know? And what would we do if the most powerful person in the country did things that made us shake our head in wonder all the time?
How would we change that equation? How would we convince others that our crazy theory might be true? Especially when the legacy media carries his water so perfectly?
But it’s just a crazy theory . . .
I agree with Gossamer and others that the theory that Obama is merely following Pape’s recommendation is an inadequate explanation because Obama’s decisions are worse than not playing.
Rather than fully implementing Pape’s recommendation, as Ron Paul might, which would have been bad enough, Obama is having the US intervene with our reputation on the line, but doing so insufficiently on its face to win. He’s positioned the US as the weak horse in the contest, which is worse. He’s not not-playing – he’s playing the US so that the other players in the game, including Iran, appear stronger than the US.
For example, the WSJ article reporting that Iraqis believe the US doesn’t want to defeat ISIS because they remember the US recently defeated AQI, so they know we could defeat ISIS, as Cornhead points out. It’s not theory to them, because they experienced the US as the strong horse. Thus, it appears deliberate to them that the US is not addressing the situation like we did before. In other words, Obama’s decisions are actively discrediting the US on the ground.
I disagree with Frog that ISIS and the other AQ derivatives are not a problem. I agree that Iran is a problem. Yet Obama’s decisions have favored Iran. In their elastic narrative, Iran is an ally against ISIS, not unlike the Russian argument that anything anti-Assad is pro-ISIS. Both Iran and ISIS need to be stopped.
The current situation is worse than Saddam’s regime, but Saddam was not the solution, either, because Saddam was in fact a terrorist who worked with al Qaeda and affiliates in his wider terrorist network that rivaled and overlapped al Qaeda, among his breach across the board of the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire that triggered OIF.
Contra Pape, the solution was the post-Surge, ex-Obama Iraq empowered by strong-horse US peace operations. In Iraq, we had taken the upper hand in the contest. In that window of opportunity, hard earned at high cost, Obama was correct to assess ISIS as the “jayvee”. But then, despite being given a winning hand by Bush – a better hand than Truman gave Eisenhower – Obama proceeded to break it down and enabled the jayvee to develop into the varsity while Obama refused Iraq’s requests for the US to honor the hard-earned partnership until it was too late to curb the problem encroaching Iraq, opening the way for Iran to fill the vacuum left irresponsibly by the US.
They will continue on their course as long as their narrative is intact. Their narrative must be discredited deeper than the issue level on the surface. To dislodge and break it, their premises must be discredited. What’s past is prologue: it’s necessary to re-lay the foundation by setting the record straight on OIF at the premise level, which sets up discrediting the false narrative and its false narrators.
Setting the record straight on OIF is not a time machine to restore post-Surge, ex-Obama Iraq. But it is a necessary step to de-stigmatize OIF in order to re-normalize the range of action and strong-horse American leadership that manifested with OIF in the Overton Window, which is needed to recover the approach for re-establishing the US as the strong horse on the ground.
I hadn’t heard of Pape before reading Neo’s post, but the description of his work at Amazon is interesting. If we really are in a “War on Terror” and if we further narrow our focus to suicide attacks then Pape’s approach is correct. Compile every instance of suicide attacks, find the precipitating factors, and act accordingly. That type of idiocy is what happens when you refuse frame the problem correctly. We have never been at war with terror we are at war with militant Islam.
Mark Zuckerberg’s statement posted by G6loq at 4:59 pm is bound to feed anti-semitism. Why the man deems it his right to speak for all Jews is beyond comprehension, but boy howdy has he ever stepped in it.
“As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities….If you’re a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.”
What a hypocrite. Right now, Jews in Israel are under attack by their Muslim subjects. Shall we all side with the Muslims against the Jews? After all, the main demand the Muslims have of the Jews is the right of return to their homes in Israel. Then all would be well. Most Jews in the region will be dead but hey we did the right thing. Right?
Incidentally, didn’t Zuckerberg renounce his American citizenship? Since he didn’t want to be an American any more, what right does he, a foreigner, have to speak for anyone here? Why isn’t he living in Switzerland? Unfortunately, leftists like Zuckerberg feed right into negative stereotypes of Jews.
Yann at 11:48 pm has stated the problem with occupation very well in my opinion. When you are dealing with an expansionist ideology, everyone is an occupier everywhere.
That is why we have to defeat the ideology itself, Islam.
How Muslims Think
By Dr. Arieh Eldad – M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel
A true story of gratitude
I was instrumental in establishing the “Israeli National Skin Bank”, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for everyday needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.
This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.
This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.
We supplied all the needed homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza.
She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.
One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.
This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilization conflict, or rather a war between civilization and barbarism.
Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.
I have never written before asking everyone to please forward this so that as many as possible can understand radical islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.
Dr Arieh Eldad
It is war. The legalistic wringing of hands over letting Mooslime in the land is bullshi@t ….
If the womyn of the land truly objected there would be no Islaaaam problem here. Womyn don’t object instead they … coo:
CLINTON PREACHES LOVE AND KINDNESS [not a spoof]
Off to Pam Geller’s blog!
We need women with balls willing to get shot at …
Eric:
I think I made it clear in both posts that I think Pape is part of Obama’s thinking, but he’s most definitely not “merely” following Pape. His position is overdetermined by many, many motivations. But Pape is part of it.
Obama is a Coward. A poster child Coward. Strong, among his various types of Cowardice is: Moral Coward.
___________________
Having stated the obvious in this day of the Strangle Hold which the PC-Thought Police enjoy upon our culture, I have fully qualified myself for: RACIST…!! BIGOT..!! HOMOPHOBE…!! ISLAMOPHOBE,,,!! And..it’s worth mentioning again…R*A*C*I*S*T..!!!