President Obama had a simple strategy during his first term in office. Blame Bush for all the problems while continuing to implement the Bush policies. The second term has not gone as well however. A long list of scandals has made the president vulnerable despite having a patsy press on his side. The death of four Americans in Benghazi including the American ambassador to Libya, lying and misconduct by members of his cabinet and the vice president, failure of the justice department to uphold the law, and spying on every American citizen by the NSA and CIA top the list of dozens of scandals. Taken together they show an administration that has little regard for truth or the constitution that they are sworn to uphold and believe that they can do what they want without repercussions.
People are in general beginning to see that President Obama is not the person that they thought he was. This is especially true among his fellow world leaders who see him as a man that they cannot trust. And now the president can no longer get the support for a military intervention in Syria that, four years ago, would have been rubber stamped by the U. N. and the European allies. Mr. Obama will be reluctant to strike Syria unilaterally since this will leave him exposed to take the full blame for all of the resultant death and destruction. This leaves us with a massive naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean sitting and waiting for orders. This lack of strength and commitment by the world's super power has energized the various groups in the Middle East that are spreading anarchy and lawlessness. This has caused what the writer of the article below refers to as A New World Disorder.
Obama’s New World Disorder
The end of the Cold War provided an
opportunity for a reshuffling of historic alliances and power, and
Americans embraced the idea of a New World Order. Syria is the
latest example of Obama’s New World Disorder.
With 9/11, we saw the culmination of a
new, asymmetric threat from seventh-century primitives who continued
to gain strength through the Clinton administration before
perpetrating the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
In the aftermath, then-Senator Obama
voted against our overseas efforts to fight terrorism and vehemently
objected to tactics, such as enhanced interrogation methods, some of
which played a role in gaining valuable information that enabled us
to dispatch Osama Bin Laden on his own personal quest for 72 virgins
in the hereafter.
Americans have learned that the world
is a more dangerous place under the leadership of our Nobel Peace
Prize winner, who never seemed to learn that peace is best achieved
though strength.
On August 20, 2012, President Obama
drew his “red line,” promising to retaliate against chemical
weapon use in Syria. We know that dictator Bashar Assad’s forces in
Syria used chemical weapons after Obama drew his red line. We also
know that up to 100,000 men, women, and children have died in the
struggle.
Another two million Syrians fled to
neighboring countries and now live in refugee camps. Rampant
religious persecution occurs at the hands of violent factions.
Syria’s citizens face dire threats as
part of daily life in this war-torn country. Recent news of a
chemical attack that killed 1,400 Syrians, including 400 children,
brought public outcry for a response. We must act in response to this
heartbreaking situation.
Obama proposes a unilateral military
response. The parliament of our closest ally rejected support for a
military intervention. No other countries have offered to initiate
military action against the Assad government. The rebels fighting the
Assad regime include members of both the Muslim Brotherhood and
elements of al-Qaeda.
At a press conference in Sweden, Obama
disavowed responsibility for drawing a red line, deflecting criticism
to Congress, the American people, and the international community.
Urging action, he insisted we must “mean what we say” about
chemical weapons.
Here are five reasons why the US should
not pursue military action:
1. We cannot trust Obama to lead a war
effort. His foolhardy unilateral engagement in Libya resulted in
arming our enemies, who used our weapons to attack our people and
kill four brave Americans. He has failed to bring these perpetrators
to justice and has essentially ignored the murder, on his watch, of
four Americans. No more Benghazis.
2. We do not know who will control
Syria’s chemical weapons if Assad falls. Even without intending to
take out Assad directly, our actions could cause his overthrow. We
don’t want to provide chemical weapons to Hezbollah, a group that
vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Nor do we want Syrian al-Qaeda
elements to gain access to weapons of mass destruction to use them
against Americans or our allies.
3. An attack on Syria will fail to
benefit America, Syrians, or the people of the Middle East,
especially the region’s Christians who fare much worse under
popular Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We do
not need to exacerbate our already decimated military readiness or
our hobbling economy. War is expensive. The last thing we need are
open-ended, fool-hardy missions led by an inconsistent and unreliable
leader.
Continue reading here
http://townhall.com/columnists/gayletrotter/2013/09/07/obamas-new-world-disorder-n1693699/page/full
