The strategy of having no strategy

The result of moving or attempting to move “forward” with no strategy is a guarantee of total and absolute failure, that is of course, unless failure was the strategy. A strategy is no more than a plan. In business no one plans to fail, as a matter of fact no lending institution will give a business loan unless there is a good and sound business plan. A strategy for success.In politics the exact opposite is true. Individuals and groups donate huge sums of money to politicians and causes hoping for success to further a political or personal agenda. A strategy of hope. The campaign slogan of “forward” with the absence of a strategy is in essence “backward”.

“Forward” is to “Advance”. BHO used the word “Forward” as the campaign slogan in 2012, yet BHO has done nothing to advance America.
“Backward” is to “Retreat” or “Decline”. Since his election BHO has only “Advanced” the “Decline” of America, retreating from greatness and many times apologizing for it or denying it.

The world of radical Islam has no intention of going “Forward”, advancing the Muslim world in particular and the world in general. The radical groups like ISIS, Boko Haram and the myriad of others only have the intention of advancing forward to decline, by going backwards. However, they do use modern tools, weapons and equipment to advance the decline of humanity, and will continue to do so. The establishment of a Caliphate takes their world from the 21st century and lands them square in the 4th century and no farther forward than the 14th century and make no mistake, they want that for the entire world. Radical Islam has a strategy and has announced it to the world.

BHO on the other hand has no strategy to counter ISIS and has announced it to America and the world. But, BHO does have a strategy, his strategy is to tell the enemy or potential enemy what he will or will not do, what events will drive him to possible action and even discloses the timeline of events. This is a very dangerous practice to say the least.

Strategy in Iraq. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and the date of total withdrawal. Upon total withdrawal inform America and the world that “we” left behind a stable and self-sufficient Iraqi government, knowing full well the exact opposite was true. Every aspiring terror group knew the exact date they could begin operations to further destabilize a less than stable government and country. Unlike the U.S. government which is divided along party lines, the Iraqi government was divided along religious lines. Sectarian violence began anew.

Strategy in Afghanistan. Announce to America and the world when combat operations would cease, troop strength reductions would begin and again the date of full withdrawal. This again tells the terror groups when they can resume operations. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are still very much alive in Afghanistan and will be heard from again.

Strategy in Libya. Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that airstrikes will be used to further weaken the Libyan government and its fighting forces attempting to hold off an insurgency. Announce the arming and training of rebel forces in Libya without any thought of how the training or arms would be used afterward. While announcing what would happen BHO also announced what would not happen, BHO announced that there would be no “boots on the ground”, no U.S. ground combat forces would be used. Establish diplomatic relations with a country in turmoil and on the brink of civil war. We all saw how that worked out. The only strategy BHO had, was to topple Qaddafi, or at least help, at the present and not for what would happen after, much less what kind of government would exist or even if there would be one.

Strategy in Syria. Again, Destabilization. Announce to America and the world that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would bring U.S. military action, a red line was drawn by BHO. Low and behold chemical weapons were deployed against a town being contested and there were civilian casualties. Allegations were circulated around the world that the Syrian military had used chemical weapons. My question was, was BHO warning the Syrian government or was he encouraging the rebel forces to use chemical weapons in order to bring the U.S. into action? I still think the latter. The red-line was erased or at least blurred by the intervention of Russia. The chemical weapons were being destroyed, but were they all destroyed. That news left the front pages and has never arisen since. How much was destroyed? How much is left? If any is left who has control of it?

The blunders by BHO and his administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria has shown to the world how ineffective the foreign policy of the U.S. is. Middle East foreign policy has suffered since President Carter and has not recovered. The policy of appeasement did not work for British PM Chamberlain and will never work for any leader.

The policy of destabilization of Libya and Syria has created the biggest and most lethal threat America has faced in many years. ISIS or as it is known now the Islamic State could have been destroyed when they were Known as ISIL only a short few months ago. They thrive and flourish now because BHO and his administration and some members of Congress were more concerned with toppling dictators than what the future may hold. The same is true of the previous administration with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

ISIS has made many gains while suffering a few loses. But is ISIS the only threat? In the beginning the intent was to establish The Levant, now the intent is to establish the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and have declared the establishment of a Caliphate. Why the change? The Levant is certainly larger than the Islamic State. Have they joined forces with other terror groups with each carving out their own domain in the world? Are they combining resources? When the news broke that ISIS fighters had captured a Syrian Air Base, I wondered why. Building and maintaining a civilian airport is expensive enough, but the costs of a Military Air Base are even more, much more. ISIS has no need of an Air Base, they have no aircraft. If the intent was to deny Syrian forces the use of the Airfield why not just render it useless and abandon it. It can not be disguised or moved, it is fixed. If it is captured the rightful owner will want it back, if it is still useable they will use it. Discussing this event with a friend, I made the following statements first they either have Aircraft other than stolen helicopters or they are expecting to get aircraft and second they may have stripped the Syrians down to their underwear and marched them out to the desert for execution, but all were not executed, the valuable were taken back. I say this for two reasons, first they intend on having aircraft and will need pilots and aviation support personnel and second Military Air Bases have what civilian airports lack, defense systems and they need to learn them as well. And once again the strategy of nothingness is revealed, ISIS was told by way of the announcement from BHO that he was authorizing surveillance flights over Syria to monitor the situation. If something is revealed what action will be taken. The ISIS fighters were even informed by social media how many more American service members we going to Iraq, where they would be sent and their intended mission, emphasizing a non-combat role. Think of the money ISIS saves daily by getting their intelligence straight from the administration and avoiding the expense of satellites or a spy network.

Now the chatter of missing civilian airliners from Libya, eleven of them. The rebels took control of the Tripoli airport and the airliners are now missing and ISIS has a Military Airbase in Syria. There was most certainly fuel at the airport in Tripoli and certainly fuel is at the Syrian Base now held by ISIS. What targets are in easy reach of an airliner from Syria or Libya used as a weapon?

Now to explain my previous statement that the terrorists have joined forces. It is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, known as an Infidel. When al Qaeda said they had kicked ISIS out of their group was it a member of al Qaeda that made that statement or was it an Infidel? When the rebels in Libya and Syria identified themselves as moderates was it a member of their group or was it an Infidel. I will even go one step further and simply state that all of the terror groups and their supporters are the same force with the same goal, no matter how they dress. There are no moderates.

Not only should one not make the mistake of confusing friends with enemies and then treating them as such, or trusting the enemy of ones enemy and thinking them to be your friend, one should also never make an enemy of a friend or potential friend based on political differences.

The anniversary of September the Eleventh is approaching.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s