Obama's "Benign Neglect" Of Jihadism Has Disastrous Consequences

by JASmius



Unfortunately, his is not a "benign neglect," but a malign support.  But the consequences are no less disastrous either way:

With al-Qaida and the Islamic State group enjoying safe havens across....Yemen, Syria and Iraq, and with terror attacks on the rise worldwide, doubts are growing about the effectiveness and sustainability of the Obama administration's "[no] footprint" strategy against global [jihad]ist movements.

A strategy predicated on training local forces [but denying them armaments] and [pretending to bomb] terrorists from the air is actually making the situation worse, some leading intelligence analysts.

Remember when O said the same thing about actually fighting and defeating jihadists?  Good times, good times.

Many are arguing for deeper U.S. involvement, if not with regular ground troops, then at least with elite advisers and commandos taking more risks in more places.

Which will be wholly inadequate against a full-fledged Islamic army armed to the teeth with U.S. heavy weapons, courtesy of you-know-who.  Only a U.S. ground invasion the size of Operation Desert Storm can defeat ISIS, and even these "alarmed experts" are flinching from that brutal reality, even though they concede the consequences of failing to do so:

"What they are doing now is making it more likely that there will be a bigger, more disastrous catastrophe for the United States," said David Sedney, who resigned in 2013 as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Drone strikes are not creating a safer, more stable world," Sedney said, and neither is the [phony] bombing campaign the Pentagon is running against the Islamic State....in Iraq and Syria. Both are creating new enemies, he added, without a plan to defeat them.

Because the goal isn't to defeat them, but to create the PR illusion that the Obama Regime is attempting to do so, while allowing them to continue to run wild and expand in our direction.

Mr. Sedney isn't the only former (because no current Obamunist minion could do so) national security figure to arrive at this harrowing realization, either:

But it is the global counter terror efforts that have many others sounding an alarm. They include former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, who accuses the administration for which he once worked of "policy confusion." Former Army deputy chief Lieutenant-General Richard Zahner says the Obama administration's policy of "benign neglect" toward strife-torn Yemen and Syria has ensured the existence of terrorist safe havens there for both al-Qaida and Islamic State militants.

Just as it was designed to do.

Even Michele Flournoy, the former undersecretary of defense for policy who was the president's first choice to replace Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, wrote last month that the U.S. effort against the Islamic State is "faltering," and urged a more robust approach.

Oh, it's not "faltering," Miss Flournoy, it's working perfectly,

"U.S. counterterrorism policy has caused some intense backlash and has had a lot of unintended consequences," said Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration Pentagon official.

Backlash?  Backlash?  But I thought that it was robust U.S. military confrontation with jihadist groups that generated "intense backlash" and "unintended consequences".  How can this be, Rosa?  No matter what we do, we generate "intense backlash" and "unintended consequences"?  So what do we have to lose by just going ahead and squashing the Islamic State like an overripe fig?

The answer, of course, is an Islamicized Middle East in flames, the long-sought endgame of Obama Middle East policy.  Just a microcosm of the entire planet in the absence of robust U.S. global leadership as its benevolent global hegemon, which he considers the focus of evil in the modern world and will never be persuaded - and cannot be coerced - otherwise.

There's very little if anything "benign" about that.