Thursday, 30 August 2012


The 2012 election will be about the economy, not foreign policy. However, a poll taken by Gallup (below) does give us a lot of insight into this election. For the first time in a long time, the public view a Democrat as being better equipped on foreign policy than a Republican. Obama is leading Romney by 12%! At the same time, it would appear from just looking at this poll, that Obama is in deep trouble. 

On the Federal Budget Deficit, Economy, Creating Jobs and Taxes - Mitt Romney is comfortably ahead of the President. 
July 19-22 2012 Gallup Survey
What makes the poll even more interesting is that while Obama is more likeable, understanding and an honest guy -  he isn't perceived to have the ability to repair the woes of the country. 

That is a big problem for President Obama and one that Mitt Romney will continue to pounce on until election day. 

It also doesn't help that people genuinely don't believe that they are better off than they were 4 years ago. 

Debunking the Obama Foreign Policy Myth

The standard line from the Democrat Party is that Obama has proven effective on the world stage. Many people do concede that when it comes down to it; Obama's strength is his foreign policy. 

Let us analyse that for a second. 


On the Obama-Biden re-election website it quotes: 

President Obama has fulfilled his promise to responsibly and safely bring our soldiers home. When the President took office in January 2009, there were 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Today, the war in Iraq has ended and the Iraqi people have taken responsibility for the security of their country.

Back in 2008, Obama inherited a solid situation. With the execution of the surge, President Bush had essentially decimated Al-Qaeda and the uprising. The Bush 43 administration had signed a U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement on 16th November 2008 which called for the pull out of US troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of US military presence in country. 

So essentially he can't take the credit for that, as he really didn't have to do anything other than administer the phased withdrawal. 


On the Obama-Biden re-election website it quotes: 

On May 1st, President Obama signed a historic Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that will help us to complete our mission and end the war in the Afghanistan as fast as we safely and responsibly can. By 2014, America’s combat mission in Afghanistan will end.

      What a way to run foreign policy. It's like telling someone in a game of 'hide and go seek', as to where you are hiding! Obama took ages to decide about a surge of troops (3 months to be precise), fired his commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal (pictured right) after he publicly criticised him and gave a specific date for withdrawal.  Furthermore, he never really had any intention of defining what winning really meant. Ronald Reagan stated that a strategy in war was: "We win, they lose". Obama didn't ever define the necessity of this war, which had an adverse effect on the soldiers serving on the ground.  
      The country is still in crisis, violence hasn't abated since the 'surge' and questions will be asked about the wisdom of the fixed date of withdrawal. Just this week we heard that Taliban fighters beheading 17 civilians after they attended a dance party in Southern Afghanistan

Middle East (Israel and Palestinians)

On the Obama-Biden re-election website it quotes: 

President Obama has repeatedly reaffirmed the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and has raised U.S. security assistance to Israel to unprecedented levels. Under President Obama’s leadership, U.S.-Israeli defence cooperation is broader and deeper than ever.
The President is working to address Israel’s security needs and ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people.
Can you honestly say that Obama has advanced the 'peace process' since his election? Even the Arab World admit that he appears clueless in trying to resolve this dispute. 

Some say, that Obama has provided machinery and equipment to Israel and that should be enough to acknowledge his support . I say, Where are his principal, his moral compass, right and wrong? Obama cowered to the left-wing of his party and National Security adviser,Jim Jones in pressuring Israel and it backfired tremendously. 

He treated Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, with complete disdain in a visit in March 2010 to the White House. It was reported (in a book called  'The Amateur, by Edward Klein') that following a permit from the Israeli government for settlements to be built in the city Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem; Obama and Hillary Clinton were fuming and summoned Netanyahu to Washington to explain the decision.  When Bibi arrived, there was no welcome as is standard for a head of state, no cameras, press conference or photographs either. Clearly frustrated, Obama left in the middle of the meeting with Netanyahu to go have dinner with his wife and kids. Before leaving, Obama purportedly said to Bibi: "Call me when you are reading to talk substance". After waiting some time for Obama to  return, Netanyahu requested some food and water for his staff but were subsequently served non-kosher food(not conforming to dietary laws).  

Is that a way to treat your strongest ally in the Middle-East? Is that a way to deal with any head of state?

He pressured Israel regarding settlement activity and all the while, giving a free ride to the Palestinians and Hamas. He also called for Israel to withdraw to the  1949 armistice lines in order to surrender all lands  to the Palestinian Authority, refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and continues to delete any reference to that being the case. 


On the Obama-Biden re-election website it quotes: 

President Obama has been clear that he is determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Under President Obama’s leadership, the United States gained the support of China, Russia, and other nations to pass the most comprehensive international sanctions regime that Iran has ever faced.The President also worked with Congress to pass the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, and signed additional sanctions hitting Iran’s central bank and oil revenues, targeting Iran’s entire financial system for the first time.
Simple question, do you think that these sanctions have worked? Iran are more dangerous than ever, still sponsoring terror,  making threatening statements about Israel and are growing ever closer to building a nuclear weapon.  

Back in 2008 Obama stated that he would be willing to meet the regime and somehow stop the proliferation, that never happened.  Worst of all he stood by in 2009 and watched as the opposition 'green revolution' were rounded up by Ahmedinejad and his 'mullah thugs' when they were close to gaining control of the country, following a rigged election.  

Al-Qaeda & the War on Terror 

On the Obama-Biden re-election website it quotes: 

More of AL-Qaeda’s senior leadership has been eliminated in the last three years than at any time since September 11th, 2001—including the group’s leader, Osama bin Laden.

Granted he did order the 'go' for the mission to kill bin-Laden and he should take credit for that, but it wasn't and never will be the case, that he initiated the hunt, or carried out it on his own accord. Since 2001, America has been on the hunt; Obama merely continued that policy initiated under the Bush administration.

In a bid to appease the left wing of his party and the rest of the world; in 2009 top-secret memos - which gave specific details about enhanced interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects during the Bush administration were released. Instead of intelligence gathering, Obama has used drones to kill suspected terrorists. By killing Islamic extremists and not taking them into custody, we are losing our ability to procure information and obtain vital intelligence.  

In 2009, Obama essentially declared an end to the term "War on Terror" and changed it to "overseas contingency operations".  At the same time, he refuses any wording from his national security department to include "Islamic extremism","Jihad" and "Islam"

All of this when America, narrowly averted two terrorist attacks on home soil. 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (right) from Nigeria, known as the "Underwear Bomber", is a Nigerian Islamist. He confessed and was convicted of attempting to detonate explosive hidden in his  underwear while on board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan, on Christmas Day, 2009. 

Even after prompting from MI5 and from Abdulmutallab's father about the threat posed by his son, the Homeland Security Department and the FBI failed to flag it. 
Disaster was averted only after a few passengers on board the plane, suspected something and subdued the terrorist. After a mere few minutes in detention, the FBI read Abdulmutallab his Miranda Rights. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano amazingly said that the system had worked correctly in the above case. A day later she apologised and confirmed that there were deep flaws in the system. 

In a similar case, Faisal Shahzad (left) is a Pakistani American attempted the May 1, 2010, Times Square car bombing. In June 2010, he confessed to 10 counts arising from the bombing attempt. In this case, disaster was averted due to the diligence of the public that saw the suspicious car emitting smoke from the back seat and called the police. 

Both cases showed how vulnerable we are and to how important it is that America in government, and, in person take the threat of terrorism. Obama may like to turn a blind eye to Islamic Extremism but is a real and present threat. 


Instead of taking decisive action to topple the Libyan regime and protect it's people. Obama proved indecisive and allowed Europe to take leadership on this issue. He couldn't decide as to whether the cause for intervention was due to protecting human life, or, toppling the despotic regime of Col. Gaddaffi. In the end, credit cannot be given to Obama as he refused to take the lead on this issue. He led from behind.


This case should prove people why elections have a consequence, or unintended consequences in this case. When there was an uprising in Tahrir Square (Feb 2011) the protesters called for 'reforms' to the government; which essentially meant that Mubarak had to relinquish power, following violent protests. 

Obama labelled the protesters in Egypt to be an "inspiration to people around the world." (he seems to like labelling a good protest movement; case in point Occupy Wall Street)
After all the pressure, Mubarak resigned and elections were called, which ushered in the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama received assurances that the 'Brotherhood' wouldn't contest the election; they reneged, ran for election and won the presidency with their candidate Mohammed Morsi wining 51.73% of the vote

Let me give you an idea about the Muslim Brotherhood and their views on women: According to the Shari’ah, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Shari’ah. 
You don’t have right for a fair trial which in essence means no Habeas Corpus. 

Obama will be meeting the leader of this party next month in New York, after President Obama invited President Morsi. 


The civil war in Syria rages on and due to his clear weakness, Obama hasn't managed to forge an alliance with countries to take action to protect the innocent lives that are being lost. He can't persuade China and Russia to get on board and do the right thing and as a result, he is looking weak and ineffective. 
Obama likes to be known as 'diplomat-in-chief', who can build alliances throughout the world, that  isn't the case as he is clearly reliant on China and Russia to make a move here. 

He continually apologises for America.

In Strasbourg, France. Obama said: 

"We must be honest with ourselves, In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift.  
 He continued:
"there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive toward Europe". 

In April 2009, Obama went to Cairo to seek a "new beginning" with the Muslim world. 

He told us how we share Muslim "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”.  

and then apologised for our response to 9/11: 

"The fear and anger that [9/11] provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.”
Has the Obama apology tour worked in the Arab World? Well not exactly!!

AIBOPE Zogby International poll conducted in 2011 surveyed over 4,000 citizens in six Arab nations in Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates  and shows the favourability rating of the United States dropping abruptly in four of them. 

In most of the those countries, our standing was better under President Bush!
That is a complete dagger in the heart to all the Obama fanatics who proclaimed that he would 'heal the world' with his Presidency. 

It is clear that world is still in peril, probably more than ever before: 

  • Iran is out of control and on the verge becoming a nuclear power
  • A rising Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
  • Reducing the size of our armed forces to the smallest in recent history
  • An Arab Spring, which is essentially a vessel for Islamic Fundamentalism & Jihad
  • A never ending civil war in Syria, which could spill into neighbouring countries
  • The real threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
  • Volatile energy markets  as a result of the unrest-  meaning higher gas prices
  • America being made subservient to the United Nations on foreign policy
  • Deep fractures within the National Security Council with Russia & China
  • With Guantanamo Bay still open
  • North Korea as threatening as usual 
  • The ridiculous 'reset' of relations with Russia at the expense of pro-western allies in Georgia and Poland  
Tie that all in with a weak and ineffectual leader, who is unwilling to take the lead in dealing with big issues. 
You have to ask yourself as to what is so popular about the Obama foreign policy record?

Obama essentially insinuated for years that the actions of the Bush Administration created a ‘black eye’, a 'stain'' on America's image throughout the world.

Based on his record, the only thing that is a black eye on America is one, 
Barack Obama!!!

No comments: