It’s only a movie . . . .

Now, however, Obama is rejecting cooperation with Damascus – the only realist course with any chance of success – and is relying on a “fantasy” scenario to create some boots on the ground. No lessons have been drawn from Libya’s collapse into bloody anarchy, or from the failure of America’s decade-long effort to train and equip the Iraqi army, which disintegrated when faced with the IS three months ago. Such fiascos notwithstanding, Obama wants to build up a Syrian rebel force as one of the pillars of his strategy . . . .^[1]

It’s hard to believe that this man is calling the shots in American foreign policy. He actually can look at Libya and Iraq and tell himself, "This time it will be different. No unpleasant and unforeseen outcomes are possible." On what he bases this belief, we are not told. The Middle East is in flames, and years of military effort and ruinous expense in Iraq and Afghanistan are for naught. And yet you'll search his speech in vain for evidence of his understanding of that.

The dead giveaway of impending U.S. policy failure is the invocation of phrases such as:

• "we stand with people who fight for their own freedom" (especially if it’s freedom from infidels),
• "common security," (not including the Arizona border and Southside Chicago),
• "common humanity" (Lee Rigby not available for comment),
• "bipartisan support" (as clueless as it ever is),
• "steady, relentless effort" (feckless dabbling),
• "seize the future" (sort of a commie thing),
• "American leadership" (confidence builder!),
• "mobilize the world" (it hangs on your every teleprompted word, Barry),
• "the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future" (and our constitutional order, free markets and free speech),
• "an enduring burden" (like your leadership),
• "our responsibility to lead" (Russia and China a sus ordenes),
• "stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity" (but just "stand for"),
• "solve ________’s crisis once and for all" (Ghost Busters),
• "partner forces on the ground" (and unicorns),
• "inclusive government" (always include your enemies),
• "broad coalition" (of three),
• "roll back" (scold),
• "drawing down our forces" (cutting our losses on last addle-brained venture),
• "targeted" (randomly killed), and
• "eliminated" (like Gaddafi).

The gem "a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy" – uttered with a straight face – left out only the words at the end, "except where Muslims are involved."

In point of fact, ANY strategy that does not face full on that Islam itself is the catalyst for the carnage we see in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. We’ll squander yet more blood and treasure until Muslims are removed from Western countries and medieval Muslim states are quarantined and denied access to financial and other resources based only on a fortuitous control of oil. Until then there will be no end to Islamic terror and bullshit, no matter how many nitwits wet their pants over such necessary and unavoidable measures.

Well so much for our intelligent commentary. Mr. Trifkovic deconstructs the whole absurd Obama speech on ISIS. It’s a speech that’s more suited to the pages of The Onion than to a major political address by a sitting American president. But we got the latter and God only knows what the next catastrophe will look like. ISIS is the direct result of our involvement in Iraq and precipitous withdrawal. As a glimpse into the future, it’s as good as any.

Notes
^[1]   "Obama’s “Strategy” and the Ensuing Non-Coalition." By Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles, 9/17/14.