OBAMA IS ON THE EXTREME MUSLIMS SIDE! DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT FOLKS?American isolationism: Obama’s unfolding signature policy

 

Whereas in his first term as president, Barack Obama opted for “leading from behind,” in international military operations, he enters his second term - even before being sworn in this week - by expanding this step-back precept into American isolationism proper – even when it comes to countering Islamist terrorism.

debkafile’s analysts note that this stance was heralded in December 2012 by his abrupt order to the USS Eisenhower strike group and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group to withdraw from stations opposite Syria.

Washington had already then decided to ignore the Syrian chemical war threat, and brush aside the report from the US consul in Istanbul that the Syrian ruler Bashad Assad had already fired chemical bombs against rebels.

And so French military intervention in Mali on Jan. 12 and Al Qaeda’s massive attack on an international Algerian gas field four days later found the United States without a single carrier, landing vessel or marine force anywhere in the vicinity, to be available for aiding in the rescue of scores of Western hostages from ten countries, including the United States.

The USS John Stennis carrier is the only vessel left at a Middle East battle station. It is tied down at the Strait of Hormuz to secure the flow of Gulf oil to the West.

It is therefore hardly surprising to find Pentagon and top US military experts leveling sharp criticism at the White House’s policy of non-intervention in the Mali conflict, where France is fighting alone, or in Algeria’s In Amenas gas field, where Algerian forces are battling a multinational al Qaeda assault and multiple hostage-taking raid for the third day.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, Jan. 20 that the sharp debate between the Pentagon and White House is over the “danger posed by a mix of Islamist militant groups, some with murky ties to Al Qaeda that are creating havoc in West Africa” and whether they present enough of a risk to US allies and interests to warrant a military response.

Many of Obama's top aides say “it is unclear whether the Mali insurgents, who include members of the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, threaten the US.”

As to the question, “What threat do they pose to the US homeland? The answer so far has been none.”

Some top Pentagon officials and military officers warn that without more aggressive US action, Mali could become a haven for extremists, akin to Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

debkafile’s counterterrorism sources report that these assertions are misleading.

Whereas the US homeland may not be in immediate peril from the Mali and Algeria episodes, it is important to remember the far-reaching interconnectivity of al Qaeda’s operations. Seven years ago, the suicidal jihads who on July 7, blew up London trains and a bus, used explosives provided by the same Al Qaeda cells of Sahel Desert which are now threatening Mali and which struck the Algerian gas field.

No US official can guarantee that such explosives from the same source won’t be used in 2013 against American targets in Europe or be smuggled into the American homeland by al Qaeda cells in Europe.

The Algerian gas field hostage siege was carried out after all by a multinational group that included Algerians, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, a Frenchman and a Malian.

It is true that Al Qaeda terrorists are engaged in vast smuggling rackets – especially of drugs and cigarettes – across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, as well arms trafficking through networks covering Egypt, Sinai, Arabia, the Gulf, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan – all of which are direct threats of US national security. But to write them off as criminals and smugglers is simplistic: “… some are diehard terrorists with more grandiose visions,” as Pentagon officials point out.

The way the Al Qaeda menace is being handled by Washington has a ripple effect in the wider context. Tehran and Damascus are avidly watching the Obama administration’s stand-aside stance on military involvement in external crises – even emergencies posed by the Al Qaeda terrorist threat encroaching on continental Europe and Africa and the Middle East up to and including the Persian Gulf.

Washington should therefore not be surprised when its diplomatic efforts – overt and secret – to rein in Iran’s military nuclear ambitions run into the sand. The Iranians know they have nothing to fear from the Obama administration. The next surprise, our Middle East sources are now reporting, will come from Damascus where, according to a hint President Bashar Assad threw out this week to his intimates.

http://www.debka.com/article/22697/American-isolationism-Obama%E2%80%99s-unfolding-signature-policy

Israel will last through all the nations lining up against her borders. They DO NOT NEED anyone to help them because they have ONE thing all other nations reject....GOD and his COVENANT with Israel! God said so and you Goldberg better get right with God!......."If Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah – one that alienates even the affections of the US, its last steadfast friend – it won't survive," Goldberg writes

Obama (CORRUPT TRADER) told his French counterpart in reference to the Israeli PM: “you’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has an eye-opening piece for Bloomberg that reveals in stark terms what President Obama really thinks of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Israel itself. As The Telegraph’s Middle East correspondent Robert Tait reports:

The damning assessment of the Israeli prime minister, relayed by senior White House officials to an American journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, is the most graphic sign yet of the toxic relationship between the two men, who have clashed continually over the stalled Middle East peace process.
Writing on the Bloomberg website, Goldberg quoted Mr Obama as repeatedly saying, "Israel doesn't know what its own best interests are" in response to a spate of recent announcements for thousands of new Jewish settler homes in east Jerusalem and the West Bank on land the Palestinians want for a future state.
… "If Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah – one that alienates even the affections of the US, its last steadfast friend – it won't survive," Goldberg writes, paraphrasing Mr Obama's words. "Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel's survival; Israel's own behaviour poses a long-term one." Mr Obama also believes the Israeli prime minister is a "political coward" who is incapable of making concessions to the Palestinians because he has "become captive of Jewish settler lobby".

President Obama’s contempt for Netanyahu is already well known, as he amply displayed in a private meeting with then French president Nicolas Sarkozy at the G-20 in November 2011, where he reportedly told his French counterpart in reference to the Israeli PM: “you’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!” Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu when he visited the United States in September last year, while finding the time to appear on the David Letterman show, and has a long track record of snubbing the Israeli PM.
Obama’s latest comments, conveyed by Jeffrey Goldberg, take the US president’s hostility against Netanyahu to new heights, and are a major diplomatic faux pas ahead of next week’s Israeli election, which Netanyahu is widely expected to win. It will undoubtedly set the tone for his entire approach towards Israel, and will further strain relations between Washington and Jerusalem during his second term. They also reveal a remarkable degree of antipathy towards America’s closest friend and ally in the Middle East, and an unhealthy willingness to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation state. There are echoes of the president’s unwelcome intervention in the British debate over membership of the European Union last week, when the senior State Department official for European affairs specifically warned Britain against an EU exit.
Barack Obama’s sneering reference to Israel as “a small state” that is already “a pariah,” and one that may not even survive unless it changes its “behaviour,” smacks of staggering condescension, and will be music to the ears of every enemy of Israel on the face of the earth. This is not a message the president of the United States should be sending to a brave ally that faces a huge range of threats, from Iran’s nuclear programme to a host of terrorist organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah. President Obama claims to be a friend of Israel, but his words and actions strongly suggest otherwise. And as for Israel’s best interests, they are far better defended by Benjamin Netanyahu than the current occupant of the White House, who is much happier giving America’s allies the boot than he is standing up to his country’s adversaries. Mr. Netanyahu clearly understands the nature of the threat Israel faces. Mr. Obama evidently does not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100198127/barack-obama-slaps-israel-in-the-face-yet-again/