Obama’s Foreign Policy Coup: Al-Qaida Taking Back Iraq


Throughout the war in Iraq, liberals clung to the talking point that there were “no” al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq to begin with.

Most conservatives thought that the liberals’ whine was meant to support their meme that the war was actually about oil or making the first President Bush proud.

Little did we realize that what liberals meant to say was there were no al-Qaida in Iraq to begin with, therefore we should give the whole country over to al-Qaida.

Similarly, when President Obama said al-Qaida was on the run, he meant on the run … to Iraq.

Because that’s what’s happening now.

All those years we fought over there, and the American lives that were lost and the money spent, all of it was for naught because the Obama Administration is sitting on its hands while it watches its al-Qaida friends overrun the country we worked so hard to give a chance at democracy.

It was always a slim chance at best in that part of the world, but if America had continued to support the nascent democracy, it might have taken root. Instead, President Obama cut and ran to get out of a war he never believed in, in favor of starting a war in Libya and trying to start one in Syria.

In all of Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East, the clearest objective has been his support of extremist Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which holds as its main objective the rebirth of an Islamic caliphate.

What was curious was Obama’s undercover support for “rebels” in Syria, to whom he sent weapons and al-Qaida-linked fighters. If the eventual elimination of Israel was seen as a goal, then Syria would have seemed a better ally than enemy, as it has funded much of the terrorism of Palestine aimed at Israel.

But with the al-Qaeda movement in Iraq, some things are becoming clearer. The primary al-Qaeda linked group taking over Iraq seems to be ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (sometimes “the Levant”). The goal of ISIS, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the re-establishment of a Muslim Caliphate, with the unifying of Iraq and Syria. Suddenly, Obama’s support for al-Qaeda “rebels” against Syria clicks into place.

If the people of Egypt had not rebelled against the Muslim Brotherhood, and if Obama had been able to rally anyone to his side against Syria with his poison gas ploy, Israel would have found itself sandwiched between two large Muslim states itching to join forces under a caliph.

Syria’s Assad could not be part of such a plan for the same reason Iran cannot: both are allies/servants of Russia, which Obama has attempted to curry favor with even while working against it in the Middle East. (Almost like a passive-aggressive servant resenting his master, hmm?)

Obama wrote in his autobiography that if things ever “took an ugly turn” he would side with Muslims. He was referring to Muslim-Americans and a hypothetical order similar to the one that led to rounding up Japanese-Americans in World War II.

But since the first days of his Administration, Obama has made it clear by his actions that Muslims are his favored group, even more than African-Americans, who have actually suffered economically more than many other Americans under Obama’s policies.

As incompetent as Obama is, some of his plans in the Middle East are moving forward, mostly where he has played a small but key part, such as in the decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and allow Islamists to take back what they had lost to President Bush.

With all the maneuvering around the restoration of the caliphate, there is a question that comes to mind: For whom is that throne intended? Who is meant to be caliph?

Could Obama possibly think it is himself?

Previous Texas School Puts Policy over Student's Health
Next We are Being Manipulated by the Redefinition of Everything

Comment