The Four Horsemen of a Looming Apocalypse

"They could all be confronted. But by the Obama administration?" 

Victor Davis Hanson  . . ."Our ability to meet these four threats depends on three factors. First, checking the four horsemen will require all U.S. military capabilities — nuclear deterrence, anti-ballistic missiles, traditional sea power, heavy traditional infantry and armor, special and counter-insurgency forces, and tactical and strategic air power. Cutting any of them at this juncture is madness.

"Second, all the threats are distinct but also opportunistic and interrelated. A phony red line, an empty step-over line, a serially repeated deadline against any one threat only encourages the other three to become bolder. In contrast, firmness against one aggression lessens the likelihood that there will be further aggrandizement elsewhere. Right now we are caught in a perfect storm of defense cuts, huge new borrowing, phony red lines, appeasement in the P5+1 negotiations in Vienna, the Libyan mess, the stupid Iraq pullout, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and comical resets and pivots. ISIS watches how we deal with Putin, who studies our past red line with Syria, which is watching the nonproliferation talks with Iran.

"Finally, all four have mortal enemies that are as worried about them as we are. Most Central and Eastern Europeans fear Putin more than we do. Our Pacific allies, terrified by China’s crude aggression, aren’t worried about an overbearing United States; rather, they desperately want U.S. leadership. A once-unthinkable alliance has emerged between Israel and moderate Sunni states in their complex opposition to both Iran and ISIS. Forming coalitions in any of these regions would be far easier than it was in the past to find friends who would go into Afghanistan or Iraq.

"If this administration is not careful, by next year it may find ISIS at the gates of Baghdad, Russian forces massing on the border of Estonia, Japan and China shooting at each other over disputed air and sea space, and Iran stockpiling its growing enriched-uranium supplies for a not too distant multi-bomb nuclear rollout.

"We think the world is growing tense; in fact, it is only the calm before the storm."

Obama's Foreign Policy: giving away what took decades to build

Krauthammer’s Take: Robert Gates Delivered ‘Absolutely Devastating’ Takedown of Obama’s Foreign Policy    (Video at the link)  . . . KRAUTHAMMER: “—And in a way that’s utterly mocking. The sentence you read about Putin’s move is old-fashioned, great power politics — is followed by a parenthetical that says, “which still exists in the 21st century.” That is to mock a president who believes that when the calendar turned on January 2000, that was the abolition of 5,000 years of power politics. And as he said at the U.N., the control of territory no longer is a measure of power in this century. This is a man truly living in a make-believe world and they wanted to emphasize that. And the fact that one of those who wrote this, as you say, had served Obama himself as defense secretary for more than one term, is absolutely devastating. When they talk about the vacuum created, Obama doesn’t recognize the entire idea of a vacuum, that bad guys or geopolitical adversaries like the Russians and the Iranians will come in, and have come in as a result of the evacuation by Obama of Iraq, and essentially as you said, giving up on Syria entirely. There’s been no Syria policy. At most when Obama began the bombing campaign, the objective, even though he pretended it was to destroy ISIS, was to hold the line in Iraq so Baghdad wouldn’t fall. And it’s Iran that’s going to ensure that, not the United States. And to do nothing in Syria. Which is what is going on now. Here’s the tragedy. I think that Condi and Bob Gates are correct that we should and could be doing a no fly zone and protect a zone as we did the Kurds in Iraq for a decade when Saddam was in power. The problem is, because Obama has delayed on everything, it could be too late. The Russians now control Syrian air space. American pilots are instructed to retire if they encounter the Russians, the Russians don’t have the same orders. So we cannot establish that kind of zone, because we will have to engage the Russians and Obama will never do that.” . . .

Will Obama respond to Russia in Syria?

"Once upon a time, or more precisely September 10, 2014, President Barack Obama spoke of the core principle of his presidency, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Today, the core has become somewhat miniscule as the U.S., conscious of its failures in Syria as in other Middle East countries, intends to reduce its role and to carry out a more modest policy." . . .

Spiraling into silliness; this president is leading America further into silliness, but it took an already silly electorate to put him into power twice.
(Video) As Putin Gains Power in Middle East, Obama Touts "Leadership" on Climate Change    "Over the weekend President Obama sat down for an interview with 60 Minutes, where he addressed a variety of issues about his foreign and domestic policies. When asked about the increasing chaos in the Middle East, with Russian President [Vladimir] Putin invading Syria and bombing rebel forces the U.S. has been supporting, Obama downplayed the need for leadership in the region and instead pivoted to his "leadership" on climate change. Obama also argued Putin's decision to send troops into Syria wasn't based on strength or a power grab, but instead is a result of a broader failed strategy."
WH National Security
@NSCPress

“My definition of leadership would be leading on #climatechange an int’l accord that potentially we'll get in Paris.” -@POTUS #60minutes

6:49 PM - 11 Oct 2015

How to Confront Vladimir Putin   ""From Sweden in the Baltic to Tartus in the Mediterranean, Russian forces are on the offensive. The consensus among U.S. officials not beholden to the White House is that Mitt Romney was right. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is the most dangerous threat to America.

""And not only to America: Russia’s attempts to reclaim its empire spread conflict and misery, prolong war, destabilize the postwar alliance system that has brought security and prosperity to the world, and erode Western values such as freedom, equality, and individualism. Though Russia may no longer espouse global Communist revolution, the consequences of its militarism and aggression are not limited to a small geographic area. The Comintern is gone. But the goals of dominating the Eurasian heartland, Finlandizing Europe, and isolating and challenging the United States have returned. The stronger Putin becomes, the more despotic, poorer, and more corrupt is the world." . . .