No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War

Max Boot   ...."Was their sacrifice worthwhile? From today’s vantage point, unfortunately, the answer looks increasingly to be “no”—but it did not need to turn out that way. The “surge” of 2007-2008 reduced violence by 90% and set Iraq on track to become a functional democracy. Alas, President Obama did not show much commitment to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept American forces past 2011. The result is that US influence in Iraq has plummeted while Iranian influence has soared. Left to his own devices, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is acting in increasingly sectarian fashion that is alienating the Sunnis and allowing Al Qaeda in Iraq—virtually defeated by 2009—to spring back to life. In short, we have managed to squander many of the gains that US troops fought so hard to achieve during the long, bloody years of war."

Now We Know What Obama Meant By 'More Flexibility After The Election '

Joshuapundit reminds us how in 2012 President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Medvedev to tell 'Vladimir' (Putin) that after the election, President Obama would have a 'a lot more flexibility'.
"Today, Pravda-on-the Hudson is reporting on what President Obama meant.
"And I'm sure this is just the beginning.:

NY Times; U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed
"The Obama administration has sought cooperation from Russia on numerous issues, with varying degrees of success. Russia generally has supported the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan and has helped to  restrict Iran’s nuclear program by supporting economic sanctions. But the two countries have been deeply at odds over the war in Syria, and over human rights issues in Russia. Most recently, Mr. Obama has said he would like further reductions in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, something Russia has said it would not consider without settling the dispute over missile defense."

WaPo Smooths the way for Obama's Israel Trip

conservativepapers.com

American Thinker  "The Washington Post runs a lengthy front-page article in its March 18 edition about President Obama's trip to Israel, stressing his need to correct missteps in his first term when he applied one-sided pressure on Israel that spawned tense relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." The article:

For Obama, trip is a chance to repair relations with disappointed Israelis

 "In his article...[Wilson] highlights Obama's mistaken view in his 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world that the Jewish state is rooted in the Holocaust and European persecution -- overlooking biblical ties to the land over a span of four millennia.
....
"Third, while the Bible indeed testifies to ancient Jewish roots, it's by no means the only such evidence. There is a huge trove of archeological proof of Jewish sovereignty in the land dating back a full millennium before the common era. There were about as many Jewish monarchs as there have been U.S. presidents. The Western Wall and Temple Mount stand today as reminders of the First and Second Jewish Temples. And even after the Roman conquest, there was a continuing Jewish presence in the land -- including many ancient Jewish towns -- over the last two millennia. Empirical evidence is just as potent as biblical evidence.
"And these are not the only Wilson missteps. Here are several more:"

NBC's Gregory to Israeli Ambassador: Will Obama Be 'Rock Star' in Israel?  "Oren gave the answer Gregory wanted to hear: "I think it's excellent....[Obama will have] a lot of opportunities to interact with Israelis, particularly Israeli young people....And by the time he takes off from Israel on Friday, I think he's going to be a very, very popular man in the state of Israel.""

I loved Rand Paul's in-your-face, Obama filibuster, but...

Before we remove US influence from the Middle East, we must be aware of the struggle there between radical Islam; "...an insurgency within the Muslim world against which almost all Sunni Muslim states are now fighting."
I cannot see any less danger in the Paulite foreign policy than is evident in Obama's. Perhaps Paul could be Chuck Hagel's smarter brother.

From AEI Critical Threats Project:  Rand Paul's Side Effects  "But Senator Paul’s most important intellectual error lies precisely in his notion of side effects. American support to the anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda. But it was America’s complete and total inaction and disinterest in Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed that movement to establish itself there to such a degree that it could plan and conduct the 9/11 attacks. Inactivity, too, has side effects, and those must be weighed as seriously as the side effects of proposed actions."
 

So much for Obama as the leader of a world power

With North Korea threat looming, US nuclear disarmament has others deciding to 'arm up'   Talk about nuclear proliferation, our status as protector of the free world was supposed to prevent just this from happening. TD

Don't Obama and Hagel understand that the superiority of the U.S. nuclear force has contributed greatly to the prevention of major war and the preservation of peace since World War II?  Read more:

 

DEBKAfile; Tehran: Our commanders now authorized to open fire. Go home, Obama!  " General Jazayeri would not have dismissed the prospect of the US activating its military options with such contempt without authorization from the highest level, i.e. supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  

He was effectively telling the US president that, after pulling American forces out of the Middle East and relegating the handling of the Syrian issue to Moscow, “Mr.Obama” had burned his military options in the Middle East and should go home."

Future presidents will inherit a foreign policy disaster from Obama. This is the natural result of a foreign policy influenced by rock stars, celebrities, and the anti-war left. So much for giving peace a chance. We appear to be reliving the path taken by the antiwar British in the 1920-1930's who continued to demand disarmament while enemies spoke of conquest as they built up their military machine. Their actions nearly cost Britain her very existence. TD

Obama's Israel Trip: One Step Forward After Three Steps Back " Visiting Israel sends an important signal of U.S. solidarity, one significant step forward. Yet Obama has also taken three major steps backward with the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, John Kerry as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as CIA Director."

 

Obama Approval Dismal in Israel, Plans to Directly Address Israeli Public

"In the world of Barack Obama, talking directly to people ensures that they will like him and do what he wants. So, for his trip to Israel, Obama is eschewing speaking at the Knesset, as his two predecessors did, and instead plans to speak at a convention center where he can directly address the Israeli people.

"There’s one small problem. Israelis don’t like him. They really don’t like him."

Jerusalem Post; Obama will want to persuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bite the bullet and leave preventing Iran from producing a bomb to the US.  "Netanyahu, however, will be mindful of past US failures to stop North Korea, Pakistan and India from going nuclear, and insist that Israel cannot take the chance that America might fail again, especially given the fact that the US can live with a nuclear Iran whereas Israel can’t. In other words, Netanyahu will be apprehensive about allowing Iran to enter a zone of immunity against Israeli attack, leaving Israel totally reliant on American military action, which may not happen."