As part of his year-end news conference, President Obama defended the scale of America’s ongoing war in Syria, insisting that he really “wanted to do something” and that the war the US ended up launching, with a few hundred ground troops and large numbers of air strikes, was the most he was able to muster.
This was because he was unable to get Congressional support for a bigger war, or the approval of the international community for such an operation, saying that the United States would’ve needed to be willing to “take over Syria” outright to get in a much bigger war.
Obama wasn’t necessarily averse to this idea, it seems, but that such a huge war was “impossible to do on the cheap.” It appears that not getting sucked into Syria’s ongoing civil war was never even considered by the administration as an option.
It is noteworthy that President Obama is lamenting the lack of a bigger US war in Syria, as Secretary of State John Kerry also recently insisted that both he and Obama really wanted that war back in 2013, and that it was really the fault of the Republican Congress that the 2013 invasion didn’t happen.
Obama translation: “Please don’t end my lucrative post-presidential speaking career before it starts just because I didn’t plunge America into a hopeless unwinnable quagmire in Syria and hot war with Russia.”
That’s so sad. Even for a President who became a serial war criminal with every drone strike he signed off on, selling his soul wasn’t enough. No pride, no dignity is allowed, not for failure, but resisting to go all-the-way fail.
He could’ve gone in, obviously. He just couldn’t see a way to go in and win, because there wasn’t one, so he didn’t. In contrast to Hilary, who appeared more than willing to not only sell her soul to the neocons, but the last drop of American blood and last ounce of American treasure as well.
True, except that being the case, why did he start the war and keep it going on this low simmer? He wouldn’t say no, just as he wouldn’t say yes to much more.
The Deep State’s geopolitical strategists convinced Obama he had no choice. As President, Obama used the choices made available too him and never seemed to have the initiative to write in his own ideas, or reach out to receive ideas from better qualified geopolitical observers, over the options his so-called advisers presented to him. Obama as President exists in an airtight bubble of warmongering he never sought to pierce.
The Deep State elites appear to be following a Mackinderan/Spykman approach to ‘containing’ the Eurasian century, lighting up as much chaos in Spykman’s ‘rimlands’, a circle of naturally historically unstable nations surrounding Russia, to destabilize and control the ‘World Heartland’ of the Eurasian Central Plains, dominated by Russia. Whatever they can’t control, like Syria, gets the chaos hybrid war treatment.
The North American Great Plains forms a smaller world heartland dominated by the U.S.. For militarist students of geopolitics, the wars from the Balkans through the Middle east, and the ‘pivot to Asia’ to try and form an axis in northeast Asia with South Korea and Japan against China, also a major World Heartland nation, all make perfect sense.
Whomever controls a heartland is king of the hill as far as that heartland can springboard global hegemony and not conflict with another heartland. Its automatically an adversarial formula, unfortunately, as it assumes everyone wants a militarist global empire.
A ‘world heartland’ is a natural continent-sized fortress containing the core lands of an imperial heartland; only the two aforementioned geographical features exist on the planet. Central plains for agriculture and living space are linked by rivers for trade and enhanced with modern transportation and communications. Mountains and oceans serve as defense walls and moat. Secondary nations lie without the walls; contiguous as rimlands to the core or ‘world islands’ across oceans.
According to Spykman, controlling the rimland is what you do if you can’t control the Mackinder’s World Heartland more directly.
Mackinder, the father of modern geopolitics, despite insisting he was first a geographer, a man of science and not a military strategist, could only see Russia as an enemy to be contained. This has coloured geopolitics since his time.
Someone (not Russia) appears to be trying to promote more rimlands in North America, what with California and Texas having separatist movements.
In any case, where militarists see continental natural fortresses, hopefully Trump sees natural economic engines of opportunity for peaceful growth, development, and world unity that is not by the sword. Also, that Trump is able to do so in a way that his era does not just become an opportunity to catch breath and rearm before going back to warmongering, assuming he isn’t immediately caught up in war anyway.
Obama’s hand was forced with little resistance till it was readily apparent WWIII was the next step. Trump seems to want to stop trouble before it gets that far.
Mackinder was an academic, not a businessperson; he could only see that the British Empire existed through force of arms enhancing trade advantage, each arm of force propelling the other. He never foresaw ballistic nuclear missiles; Mackinder’s ‘scientific’ pretext for world conflict does not work so well with those.
Mackinderist Deep Statesmen (and women) also don’t appear to account for Russia and China acting upon Mackinderism intelligently. Russia and China very much appear to be NPCs in a world domination video game (strategic simulation) with no capacity for initiative on their own save what they are programmed to do, and when they don’t lose on command, Western warmongers go snowflake and throw temper tantrums.
How sad! For a man who won on the wings of voters eager for change from Bush wars, he ended up turning this presidency over to Hillary day one. Democratic voters were done. No more energy, no more faith in anyone. But Republicans were smarter — they never offered a candidate that could give voters any hope. Thus, the one party system came to life. And it would have been again — as most republican candidates were Hillary copies. Except Trump. And he was clear from day one — the terrorism is our enemy, and flirting with terrorism will bring us grief. Obama and Hillary do not care. They would have turned over those Syrian women from Damascus, westernized and educated — to the tender mercies of head-choppers. How many atrocious crimes were committed in Aleppo during all those harrowing years of captivity endured by East Aleppo population. All of this is coming out — and our president is making bold news, if we were just ready to spend money, he would have made sure the Saudi sponsored Islamic cults, chop heads all the way to Damascus. I thought that there is no hate and racism in Obama. How wrong was I. He is evil, just like the rest of neocons. They just want to WIN and it does not matter how or for what. No reason, no purpose — just WIN.
How shameful. He really needs to go, and the sooner the better. Before he tarnishes any more of what is left of his image. He may have been a phony, but at least he may have left us with some illusions.
Do you have any proof that our air force went into action in Libya without an order from President Obama? Really? Or in Syria?
Who ordered our Armed Forces out of Iraq when SOFA 2008 expired? Obama or Clinton?
Who ordered a “last push” in Afghanistan, Obama or Clinton?
Who ordered a shift of military policy towards the Pacific Ocean region, Obama or Clinton?
Clinton ceased to be Secretary of State in 2013. What does she have to do with decisions to go back militarily into Iraq and into Libya after ISIL became a scare?
And who but President Bush II is the major instigator of all the recent suffering caused by us and others in the Middle East?
I am not defending Obama’s atrocious policies in Libya and Syria or vs. China and Russia. I am questioning your almost certainly huge falsification of history by blaming it all on Secretary Clinton. Mr. Obama is not the sissy who “turned over the government to Clinton on day one” that you have created. That is laughable.
You misunderstood. He is definitelly not a sissy, and did mot accept the Clinton Democratic party machine without knowing well what he was doing. He was a lawyer and a politician. He beat in primaries his party favorite. Not just favorite — but an oligarchy behind her. The lesson learned that year by all involved in politics is: you cannot be a nobody and become a president. You either have your own power structure behind you that shares your goals — or else you will be implementing the goals of your party and power structures/oligarchy that own that party.
Parties are not in constitution, but are privately owned and operated corporations. Both are in the business of buying power, influence and money by creating a political platform for attracting voters. Hopefully registered. There was an undeniable energy that propelled Obama to the presidency. He was voted in the office not just by his fabled new coalition of minorities, young, women and educated, but by millions of blue collar workers of Mid West. Vast majority of people at that time associated economic woes and financial crisis with Bush era wars and bankers’s greed. Some understood the larger truth -/ that Bill Clinton ushered an era of “humanitarian interventions” that sealed the fate of any resistance to war profiteering that existed in the waning days of Bush Senior presidency. That was the last time Republicans in Congress objected to wars snd nation building — accusing Clinton’s war for Kosovo to be waged using Social Security money.
Obama had to obey Party policies regardless of why people voted for him and thousands upon thousands volunteers worked for. In a deal cut before Denver convention, all real power was turned over to Clinton and the oligarchy behind her. Obama was left to write speeches and fix health care. As for the financial system — hope you understand that mothing of essence changed and no meaningfull reforms implemented. The bubble is growing again, as the 2008 bubble was transferred from the private sector to Fed thus under Onama our debt increased immensely. Bubble makers got to keep whatever they earned while inflating the bubble — and taxpayers inherited the loss on books when bubble burst. Andrew Jackson once talked about it — nothing learned. lThis is Obama legacy as he and his Party chose to double down on financial remedies that went wrong — and put all the faith in the rising economic future of war making and profiteering. Obama presided over that. He knew what he promised — and knew the shame of it all. But over time — shame no longer exists. Thus today he is more mindfull of his marketability as ex-president, and is peddling the wares for his Party oligarchs. For which he will be rewarded. Did anyone think that he would go back to being a lawyer? Of course not. His ability to inspire with his speaches is too valuable a commodity, and they are already making plans for new generation of voters. Folksy “just cut it out” Obama sounds like a merchandiizable nugget.
It is time to get more cynical. Politicians took us fot idiots. But they also made sure we all can afford smart phones, and that will be their undoing. Believing that this will help them control the masses, it thrned out that these little devices turned every person into a reporter; there are now millions of eyes on their media lies.
Shorter Obama: I coulda been a contender…, but instead I’m just a bum.
(Apologies to Brando in “On the Waterfront”)
Much as I detest Donald Trump, I certainly agree with one thing he has said: our US Government’s long history (under Democratic and Republican administrations) of promoting “regime change” all over the planet has been disastrous and must stop. Whether Trump will really act in accordance with that campaign promise is another question — especially in light of his reversal on numerous other campaign promises that he made, even before he takes office. All we can do is to hope he will keep his word on this, and then do everything we can to ensure that further US “regime change” activities are not carried out.
Yes, this is the best course- to take over Syria- because we can point to Iraq as an example of how wonderful we can make things for the Syrians if they were under our control. Just as we did in Iraq, we can impose peace and stability and bring all the warring factions to the table to work out their differences peacefully and bring the nation along to work as one for the good of everyone. Under American-style democracy government officials will be elected without back-door machinations and endless legal protests (oh, wait, never mind that part) and, um, life will be good. So, Arab World, is you want a shining example of what the US can do for you, you need look no farther than Iraq, Libya, or Yemen. They all LOVE the US for its liberating them from the horrors of war and oppression.
Nobel Peace Prize Holder bemoans that he hasn’t become War Criminal enough; still hopes his legacy will eventually get his sorry ass dragged before a war criminal court.
His only consolation is that history won’t be kind on this kind of clownshow.
Bill Clinton , Bush and Obama would all be eligible for a world criminal court .But the truth of the matter is their is no such court . Oh there is a court but it is not a criminal court but a political court run by criminals Where it is very easy to see what kind of justice you can expect to find in a global world government .
The ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ president begging for war…
That Prize was given to a person who as a candidate for the US Presidency had stated to the Chicago Tribute that he was not against all wars. Only against “stupid wars”.
Stupid: Iraq.
Non-stupid: Afghanistan.
It was on this website that I was ridiculed and attacked when I warned in 2008 that Mr. Obama was not a “peacenik”.
“It was on this website that I was ridiculed and attacked when I warned in 2008 that Mr. Obama was not a “peacenik”.
i find that hard to believe.
p.s. i have been here since 2004
Obama received the Nobel Peace prize in 2009…he was president. He was/is a failure as president of the United States and giving him what once was a great prize was a failure too. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/18/former-top-nobel-official-says-maybe-obamas-peace-prize-was-not-such-a-good-idea/72396794/
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
“It appears that not getting sucked into Syria’s ongoing civil war was never even considered by the administration as an option.”
Without the outsider actions of the US and friends, there would have been very little “civil war” and it would have been over 4 years ago, when it first petered out amid begging for outside intervention.
It isn’t that Obama failed to intervene to stop the war. He intervened to get it going and keep it going. THAT is where the blame is to be found.