President Obama is to Blame

President Obama Could have Stopped the Paris Attacks and the Syrian Refugee Crisis Before They Happened

In All Posts, Democrats, Politics, Rant by Sal McCloskeyLeave a Comment

There’s a reason that I haven’t written about the Paris attacks on this site. As a conservative, I have to make sure that my response to events is thought out all the way through before jumping into a reaction, particularly in tragedies like what has happened in Egypt, Lebanon, and France. Now that the reality has sunk in, I’m not feeling any better. In fact, I’m mad as hell.

If you read mainstream media, you’ll find that everyone is looking for reasons why the Islamic State was able to coordinate such a brazen attack in a major beacon of western society. Paris isn’t Baghdad. It’s not Ankara. It’s not even Beirut, though the fact that they were able to commit terrorist activities in the heart of Hezbollah is striking. We’ve seen reports that blamed French policyGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel, and even Edward Snowden for the attacks.

Why is nobody blaming President Obama?

I’ll do it. To say that President Obama’s positions on the Islamic State and the Syrian civil war have been passive would be a dramatic understatement. It’s not just the fact that he called the Islamic State the junior varsity team. It’s not just that he had an opportunity to bring an abrupt end to the Syrian civil war when Bashar al-Assad crossed the President’s red line. Those are obvious. The more immediate blame needs to be assessed on President Obama’s unwillingness to take direct action against the Islamic State before they were able to gain such a strong foothold on the Middle East and a rising influence over western society.

If he did anything even close to what many of the Republican candidates have proposed, there’s a good chance that the attacks in Sharm el-Sheik, Beirut, and Paris would never have happened. As Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican candidate for President, has been proposing since well before the string of terrorist attacks occurred, we should heavily arm the peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters in Iraq who are practically begging to be given the resources to take out the Islamic State. Their ground efforts combined with massive US-led air support would likely be enough to drive the Islamic State back into caves and eventually towards complete annihilation.

It’s hard not to let my political affiliation seep through, but in this case I can say with clarity that my perspectives are not driven by the party line. Even a Democrat who took an honest look at the circumstance that have led up to where we are today would be forced to admit that President Obama has allowed the Islamic State to thrive. He has also allowed Russia to come in and save Assad two years after we had the green light through Assad’s own actions to take him out. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a big fan of regime change, but it’s clear that had the President stayed true to his word and taken out Assad when he used chemical weapons against his own people, then we wouldn’t have a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place.

It’s not politically correct to blame the President of the United States for what is happening in the Middle East and Europe, but we’re not dealing with a politically correct enemy. Will the President be willing to finally stand up and lead the world, or is he going to continue to force its chaotic demise?

Leave a Reply