What a Difference 4 Years Make

During the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Obama ripped into Romney's views on foreign policy.  Here's the clip.  Obama mocks Romney for identifying Russia as the number one geopolitical rival.  He also gives him grief for making a nuclear treaty with Russia.  To read the news since the 2016 election, it looks like Romney was a seer!  He then attacks Romney for wanting more troops in Iraq.  As it turned out, ISIS exploded on the scene in 2014 and there was virtually no US presence to oppose it and the Iraqi army collapsed.  Gee, Romney is an oracle!  Then he hammers Romney for dithering on Afghanistan, apparently not having a mirror on hand to examine his own record on that account. 

Asked two years later - in light of troubles in Ukraine and Syria - if Romney was right on Russia being our primary geopolitical foe, Obama dodged a direct response to the question and offered vague analysis instead.

Though I'm certainly no Romney fan, he demonstrably had the clearer view on foreign affairs in general and Russia in particular.  Even Democrats would have a hard time justifying Obama's 2012 statements in light of current events.  If Russia has had as much influence as many Democrats are now saying, those above clips will eventually be cited like Neville Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' proclamation.  According to some accounts, Obama sat on his hands while Russian operatives rigged the election for Trump.  Thus, the effort to delegitimize Trump's election must simultaneously paint Obama as hopelessly clueless and incompetent with regard to Russia.

Muslim Ban = Fake News

As someone who favors a Muslim ban because Islam is an evil ideology that happens to have religious aspects, there is no Muslim ban.  What we have is a ban on people from Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran.  Yes, these are all majority Muslim countries.  So are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, none of which are covered by the 'Muslim' ban.  QED, we are not banning Muslims, we are banning certain nationalities.  Ergo, a Muslim ban is a misnomer.  Imagine if, during World War II, a ban on Germans and Italians traveling to the US was described as a Caucasian ban.  Idiotic!

There is a subset of Muslims from countries that have been infiltrated with ISIS operatives.  ISIS has openly stated its desire to sneak terrorists into Western countries as part of the refugee flood.  Stopping the flow of people from these regions is common sense.  Until we can weed out the terrorists, it is more important for the government to protect American lives than to harbor refugees.  If the choice is between the safety of Ma and Pa Kettle of Syracuse or the well being of Muhammad from Syria, the Kettles should be chosen every time.

 

Calling it a Muslim ban gives an impression that is demonstrably false.  Fake news.

Who Does ISIS Prefer?

Scott Adams, famed for his Dilbert comic strip, also has an interesting blog.  In a recent twitter post, he posited that ISIS could influence the election if it sponsored a big terror attack before election day.  Trump has seen his numbers rise after recent attacks as his border wall and Muslim immigration ban look more reasonable.  If no attack, the relentless stories of his racism and bigotry lessen approval of these plans and see Hillary's numbers improve comparatively.  Therefore, staging or not staging an attack will tell which candidate that ISIS prefers as president.

 

The goal of his tweet was to see how Clinton supporters reacted to the suggestion that ISIS may prefer Hillary.  He called it a Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance.  Worth reading.

9/11 +15

It is now fifteen years since the 9/11 attacks that triggered our recent flurry of Middle Eastern engagements and, if anything, we have lost ground.

After the 9/11 attacks, the country was on guard.  In the rest of the Bush Administration, 25 people were killed in Muslim attacks and 14 were injured.  During the Obama Administration, 114 people have been killed and 373 injured in Muslim attacks.  This only counts attacks on American soil.  The success rate of the enemy on our turf has gone up.  Homeland Security failure!  Worse off.

Afghanistan was the host of al Qaeda and the Taliban were toppled during the Afghan War.  Rebuilding efforts have been mostly for naught.  The continued presence of US troops makes the region less hospitable to al Qaeda and its ilk but a lasting victory is not established.  Better off.

The anti-American Saddam was toppled during the Iraq War and had become a relatively stable pro-American democracy thereafter.  However, US troops were completely withdrawn in 2011 and ISIS and Iran filled the power vacuum shortly thereafter.  The successes of ISIS have resulted in US re-engagement in the region.  Trade Saddam for ISIS?  In 2010, we had clearly been better off but as of now, we might be at status quo ante bellum.  Break even.

 

In 2011, Libya was involved in a Civil War and the United States opted for the non-Gaddafi side.  Libya has become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorist groups, including a branch of al Qaeda.  The bill for this came due in Benghazi, 4 years ago today.  Worse off.

Egypt's stable, though repressive, pro-American regime was toppled and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  This was in turn toppled and made way for a new stable, though repressive, not so pro-American regime.  Worse off.

Yemen's pro-American government has been toppled and Yemen is another failed state with both al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates.  Worse off.

 

The US became entangled in the Syrian civil war thanks to a red line.  The red line put US standing and reliability on the block.  Failure to do anything when the red line was crossed has hugely diminished US prestige in the world.  Russia, Iran, and Turkey have all moved into Syria and attacked the US-backed rebels.  Worse off.

 

Seeing the writing on the wall, Israel, America's staunchest ally in the region for decades, has recently had a high level meeting with Russia.  With American power waning, Israel needs to make arrangements should the decline continue.  Worse off.

 

Turkey has gone from a secular democracy to an Islamist state.  President Erdogan has viewed democracy as a tram that one takes until you reach your stop.  He reached his stop and gotten off.  Like Israel's Netanyahu, Erdogan has also made pilgrimage to Russia.  Though a member of NATO, Turkey is looking to improve bi-lateral relations with NATO's traditional enemy.  Worse off.

 

Iran was anti-American at the start and remains so.  The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has gifted hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, is a catastrophe that only gets worse.  Sanctions have been lifted and Iran is cheating on the deal, cozying up to Russia, and expanding its influence in the Middle East.  Much worse off.

 

As it stands, we are losing the war.  We may win skirmishes with various terror affiliates but such affiliates are popping up faster than we are stomping them.  Worse still, every candidate for the Presidency will continue to lose the war.  Trump, Johnson, and Stein would all wash their hands of the region (Trump talks about crushing ISIS but has little interest in the larger war).  Hillary helped formulate our current losing strategy and is likely to stay the course.  However, she is probably the most hawkish of the bunch and had disagreed with Obama on some policies where he proved more dovish.

 

Like the Cold War, we will eventually win this one.  However, it is going to take another 9/11-like attack against us (or a nuclear one against anyone) before we adopt the unconditional surrender posture that served us so well in WWII.

Head Firmly in the Sand

Despite numerous attacks by refugees of Middle Eastern origin throughout Europe and open claims by ISIS that they are infiltrating Jihadis among refugees, President Obama is pushing ahead with his plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States.  Why?  Because those are our values!  Here is a man who would have demanded an increase in Japanese immigration during World War II.  This is so obviously stupid as to be inexplicable.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, we cannot hope to effectively screen them.  Some will certainly be Jihadis who will go on a killing spree while shouting "Allahu Akbar!"  Most Americans are afraid of being accused of racism for opposing this sort of insanity, which is why we are getting more and more of the insanity.

Trump for Saddam?

There is a stink about Donald Trump speaking well of Saddam Hussein, especially in regards to Saddam's ability to kill terrorists.  This is also a reason why Trump holds that the Iraq War should never have been fought and has led to the rise of ISIS.  Ditto the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.  He has a point.

Saddam Hussein was an evil, miserable human being but one could argue that the political situation was much better under his tyranny than it is now.  That same case can be made for Gaddafi.  We have toppled tyrants and now have terrorist havens and a refugee crisis that is contributing to a crackup of the European Union.  Seeing how it turned out, how many politicians would have preferred to stick with the status quo ante?  Donald Trump has declared that, as bad as Saddam was, he was better than what we've got now.

 

Of course, though Trump has made this point repeatedly, it has only made big news lately because the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party needs to report about something other than 'Crooked Hillary' and the rigged system that let her skate.  Interestingly, Hillary voted to invade Iraq and was the architect of Libya.  "We came, we saw, he died!"  The anti-war crowd, which has been in the Democratic camp since Vietnam, may be wooed by a comparatively dovish Trump.

Islam cannot be Reformed

This article offers a view that is too often overlooked.  Much as there are people who are culturally Jewish though religiously secular, the same is true of many Muslims.  Those Muslims who take the religion seriously, who follow the actual preaching and teaching of Muhammad, are the ones who kill the infidel and blow themselves to bits.  When a non-Muslim makes that point, it is dismissed as the ravings of a bigot.  It becomes more difficult to dismiss when Ayann Hirsi Ali or Nabeel Qureshi offer the same points.

 

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, Islam is not just a religion.  Judaism was a slave religion as far as the ancient Egyptians were concerned and most of Jewish history is one of being a subjugated, and usually hated, minority.  Christianity spent its founding centuries with a status similar to the Jews.  Each was a self-contained belief system that was separate from governing.  Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."  Here is a separation of church and state from the very beginning.  Islam arose under entirely different circumstances.  Muhammad rose to be the ruler of a burgeoning empire and the religion thus has governmental aspects to it.  Islam has an integrated legal system, Sharia.  Where the West has come to revere the separation of church and state, Islam holds that church and state are inseparable.

 

There is talk of an Islamic Reformation, echoing the tumultuous Christian Reformation.  The Christian Reformation was a rebellion against the massive superstructure that was the Catholic Church.  Jesus said nothing of Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, and so forth who lived lives of luxury at the expense of believers.  The Fall of Rome had left a power vacuum in the West that, with both positive and negative consequences, the church filled.  Martin Luther attacked this religious construct that had little basis in the teachings of Christ.  There is much to be said on both sides of that argument.  However, the reformists believed they were establishing the religion based more on teachings of the founder, discarding much of the tacked on aspects that had evolved over the centuries.  With that in mind, how could Islam have a Reformation?  Protestants sought to return to the source material.  There are currently Muslims doing exactly that with the Koran and they are called ISIS and al Qaeda.  There can be no Islamic Reformation that both quells the Jihadi impulses and is true to Muhammad.  Like the church and state under Sharia, Jihad and Muhammad are inseparable.

Ideological State of Iraq and Syria

Syed Farook was born in Illinois to Pakistani immigrants.  He had worked at the San Bernardino public health department for 5 years.  Two years ago, he married his wife, Tashfeen Malik, and they had a baby girl 6 months ago.  Then, out of the blue, he and his wife shot more than 30 people, mostly Farook's co-workers.  Sure, they were both Muslims but that had nothing to do with it.  No, this was probably work place violence.  Oh, the wife pledged allegiance to ISIS on Facebook during the attack?  But it still has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is a religion of peace.  ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Ansar al-Islam, and all the rest are doing Islam wrong.

 

It turns out that ISIS is not Islamic.  Which must mean that all of those other groups aren't Islamic either.  There is an interesting article on Think Progress that explains it:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-not-islamic/

 

Well, that cleared things up.  So Mohammad wasn't a Muslim.  You see, he was a warlord who led his 'peaceful' followers into a score of battles.  His followers began as bandits who struck Meccan caravans, the better to get wealth and power.  After a successful battle against a Meccan force where he was vastly outnumbered, his following grew.  Eventually, he conquered Mecca and then Arabia.  It was all done very peacefully, because Islam is the religion of peace.

 

But back to Farook.  Though he has been described as 'very religious,' we know that his path led him not to true Islam but to Ideology!  Yes, it was an evil Ideology that somehow exclusively afflicts Muslims.  Those terror groups have all wrongly appropriated the title of Islam.  Of course, no one should ask why Muslims are so susceptible to Ideology.  Just be satisfied that Ideology is not Islam.  There is no link.  If you think otherwise, you are an Islamaphobe and may be subject to prosecution by the DOJ!

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett

 

Maybe Attorney General Lynch could use that same reasoning to protect Christians and Jews?  Maybe?

Tony Blair's Apology

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized for the Iraq War, even going so far to take some responsibility for the rise of ISIS.  I am truly perplexed at why he has done this.  There is nothing to gain by this apology.  If he thought he was hounded when he held that it was a good decision, just wait for the attacks now that he has admitted guilt for a bad decision.  Sure, he has no political future to protect but history will not be kind.

 

There was a brief period when Tony Blair was the leader of the Free World.  President Clinton was happily ignoring America's traditional leadership role that seemed so unimportant with the end of the Cold War.  Blair took up the mantle and pushed for action in Kosovo, dragging Clinton along.  President Bush resumed America's leadership role.  President Obama has discarded it and there hasn't been a Tony Blair to pick it up.  The Free World is currently rudderless and the consequences are everywhere.

Tony Blair is not responsible for ISIS, not even partially.  This is post hoc ergo propter hoc logic.  If Blair must blame someone, he should be pointing his finger at Barack Obama.  Iraq had been won and was surprisingly stable after the US Surge in 2007.  The US Military was the foundation of that stability.  Had that foundation remained - as it had in places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, ISIS could not have taken root.  Obama and Biden were proclaiming Iraq as a success of their administration in 2010!  Then we pulled out all US troops, collapse followed, and Blair is accepting some blame?  It almost reminds one of Vietnam where the US achieved success in the Paris Peace Accords - Kissinger received a Nobel Peace Prize - and then, in the wake of Watergate, the Congress cut all support to South Vietnam.  North Vietnam violated the peace accords and the US did nothing.  Collapse and millions of boat people followed.  Bush and Blair won the war but it was up to their successors to keep the peace.  Blair has inexplicably accepted blame for the failures of others.

 

Unless he has some terminal illness that has prompted this apology, Blair will live to regret it.  He did not learn from his contemporary, Bill Clinton: deny everything.  By apologizing, Blair has admitted guilt.  Imagine if Bill Clinton suddenly apologized to all the women who accused him of misconduct, if it apologized for not killing Bin Laden when he had the chance, for suborning perjury, or for lying to the American people about 'not having sex with that woman.'  Would he rise in esteem for having confessed his faults or fall for admitting guilt?  Imagine the campaign ads against his wife that would be nothing but Bill admitting guilt contrasted with Hillary blaming a 'vast rightwing conspiracy.'  Yes, it would be catastrophic.  But Clinton is too good a politician to ever do something so stupid; such is not the case for Blair.

 

Of course, Blair's apology will be used to bludgeon George W. Bush, the prime mover and shaker of the Iraq War.  Perhaps he expects to get the Colin Powell treatment.  Maybe from the US press but probably not from the British press.

Syria Strategy in Shambles

President Obama is currently back on his gun control crusade, now considering executive action that he once said was beyond his authority.  Just like immigration reform was beyond his authority until he did it anyway.  And Congress let him get away with it.  Before the Oregon shooting, Obama had moved from the 'success' of his Iran Deal to his Climate Change Crusade.  He wants to talk about anything not related to his Middle East policy.  Here are a few things that have happened regarding Syria in just the last month or so:

Aug 23: Even proponents say Iran Nuke Deal just kicks the can 15 years down the road.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html?_r=0

Sept 3: Iran dismisses claims that Iran Deal will restrict their military ambitions.  Even as Obama was still trying to push the deal in Congress, Iran is diminishing its value.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/03/iran-thumbs-nose-at-us-even-as-obama-rallies-support-for-nuke-deal/?intcmp=hpbt1

Sept 9: Russian troops in joint operations with Syrian forces.  This is not good news for the anti-Assad rebels that we are supporting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150910

Sept 10: Democrats defeat Republican effort to nix Iran Deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-senate-dems-block-gop-measure-to-kill-213506

Sept 11: NATO surprised by Russian move into Syria.  This speaks wonders for our intelligence agencies.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/nato-caught-surprised-russias-move-syria/120764/

Sept 12: Look, Iran has more uranium than we thought.  Somehow, I suspect Obama had this information related to him in a Presidential Daily Brief some time in advance of his lobbying Congress to pass his nuke deal.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-finds-unexpectedly-high-uranium-104622948.html

Sept 14: Russia deploys tanks at Syrian airfield.  The US doesn't have any tanks in Syria.  We are suddenly losing the arms race in Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-positioning-tanks-syria-airfield-u-officials-144236303.html

Sept 16: Ballistic Missiles development not part of deal.  Well, that's good news.  We've delayed nukes for 15 years - if they don't cheat (pay not attention to the story above about unexpected uranium) - but they will have fully developed delivery capacity waiting for the warheads.  Awesome.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-iranian-ballistic-missile-tests-not-a-nuke-deal-violation/

Sept 18: Russia deploys Tactical Fighter Jets to Syrian base.  This can't be good.  First tanks, now fighters jets.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-defense-secretary-discusses-syria-with-russian-counterpart-1442589965

Sept 22: Russia establishing bases in Syria.  And now Syria is more firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.  While the US draws out of the Middle East, Russia is gladly moving in.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-expands-military-its-presence-in-syria-satellite-photos-show-1442937150

Sept 27: Russia and Iran ally with Syria's Assad, making Obama's official policy of Assad's removal all that much more unlikely.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-iran-throw-weight-behind-assad-un-meet-210506731.html

Sept 29: Iran purchase aircraft and satellites from Russia.  Yes, Iran is also firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-buys-21-billion-in-aircraft-satellites-from-russia/

Oct 1: Iranian troops headed to Syria to help Assad.  US Syrian policy in collapse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001

Oct 1: Russia begins airstrikes in Syria, but not against ISIS.  US supported rebels targeted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150930/eu--russia-syria-1f3833b009.html

Oct 2: Putin declares Syrian no-fly zone.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern no-fly zones.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-02/putin-has-his-own-no-fly-zone-in-Syria

Oct 4: US proposes ramping up pressure on ISIS in Syria.  We're getting outmaneuvered!  We'd better do something soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/middleeast/us-aims-to-put-more-pressure-on-isis-in-syria.html?src=twr&_r=0

Oct 7: Iran refuses any further talks with US.  After a complete victory like the nuke deal, there's no point in more talks. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-iran-us-talks-idUSKCN0S10P220151007

Oct 7: Russia supports Syrian offensive with cruise missiles.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern cruise missile use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-russian-air-strikes-pound-rebel-zones-in-latest-blows/2015/10/07/fb3be168-5cf3-4e38-98f3-f6b75ed53871_story.html

Oct 9: Iran Nuke Deal violates federal law.  That's all well and good but it's not going to prevent President Obama from lifting sanctions.  Federal law hasn't been an impediment to much of his policy so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/09/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/

Oct 10: US abandons training Syrian resistance to combat ISIS.  Yes, time to throw in the towel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

Obama was never serious about fighting ISIS.  He had to 'do something' because of the beheading of US citizens.  He did as little as he could.  If I know that, Russia and Iran know that too.  And they have gladly moved in to take advantage of American weakness.  As Obama shows weakness at each provocation, America's enemies get bolder.  This next year is not going to be a good one for US foreign policy and that's why the gun control crusade is a top priority again.

The End of Pax Americana

In the Ancient World, there was a period that has come to be called the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace.  After two centuries of almost continuous warfare, Augustus brought about an era of peace in the wake of his victory over Antony and Cleopatra.  This extended period of no warfare was unknown to Romans but not unwelcome.  It lasted for two hundred years but came to an end with Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator).

 

Based on this Roman example, historians have picked out other similar time and titled them for the dominant power that secured the peace.  After Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo, Britain became the dominant power around the globe.  Its mighty navy protected the seas and thereby promoted trade and comity on the waves.  This Pax Britannica lasted until World War I.  It was not until after World War II that the United States took the reins from Britain and established the Pax Americana.  Of course, there have been wars during this period but they have not touched the American mainland - terrorist attacks excepted.

 

Barack Obama has refused to maintain the Pax Americana.  From the very start, he apologized for America's past arrogance and declared that we had no business telling other countries what they should and shouldn't do.  He abandoned allies like Poland to curry favor with opponents like Russia.  He abandoned Iraq and is somehow bemused that ISIS arose in the fertile power vacuum he left.  He was a cheerleader for the Arab Spring which has toppled our former allies - though admittedly dictators - and provided more fertile soil for jihadists; that was not a good tradeoff.  The Middle East is in ruins and expelling refugees at an alarming rate.  Iran is on the rise and aligning itself with Russia.  Russia has become a firm supporter of Assad in Syria, a dictator that Obama long ago demanded step down.  Russia, whom Romney identified as our number one geopolitical adversary in the 2012 campaign, is securing a foothold in the Middle East while we retreat from it.

 

As happened with the Pax Britannica, America is finding it more difficult to pay for the peace.  With an economy that has stagnated for the better part of a decade and a rapidly growing welfare state to support, it is easier to cut the military than transfer payments to voters.

 

At the UN today, Vladimir Putin laid the blame for Middle Eastern turmoil on the West.  And he was right!  Obama has left a power vacuum and Putin is only too happy to accept this gift.  During the Cold War, we funded the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, a country with relatively little in the way of natural resources.  Now we are handing over the whole of the Middle East, a magnificent oil producer, without resistance.

 

I rather doubt we will have a Pax Russia to follow America's abdication. 

Foregin Policy Blunder

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11156264/Iraq-asks-for-US-ground-troops-as-Isil-threaten-Baghdad.html

As many predicted, pulling every US troop out of Iraq meant it was virtually certain that all the gains achieved would be reversed.  Such has come to pass.  Unfortunately for Obama, he is still in office.  He withdrew the troops, he proudly ran for re-election on the fact that he withdrew the troops, and now Iraq is crumbling.

We stayed in Germany after World War II until... oh, yeah, we're still there.  How is Germany doing?  We stayed in Japan after WWII until... still there.  Japan doing okay?  What about South Korea?  Still there and it is prospering.  Let's look at the places where we didn't stay.  Vietnam?  It got pretty ugly after we left.  How about Haiti?  We've sent troops to Haiti many times but they always left.  Haiti is a basket case.  With this sort of record, why would we choose to leave?  It was a virtual guarantee of disaster.  But it made for a good campaign slogan for Obama's final election.

 

There are two strategic options for dealing with ISIS.  The first is to fight to win.  That would mean ground troops, tanks, re-established bases in Iraq, and a real war.  The second is to wash our hands of the matter and let the locals sort it out.  Either you want to beat them or you don't.  Now, there are also political options.  Strategic option 1 is anathema to the Democrat-base in the run-up to a midterm election.  Also, option 1 lays bare the blunder in removing troops in the first place.  Strategic option 2 is unacceptable because the American people demand some sort of action in the wake of beheaded Americans.  Thus we have the political option.  We go to war just enough to be 'doing something' but not enough to actually win.

 

The president's rhetoric has sounded hawkish, claiming we will destroy ISIS.  He says that is the goal but he does not provide the means of achieving that end.  He is all talk.  As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  Obama's actions, be they with regard to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, Syria's use of chemical weapons, or a desire to defeat ISIS, always show that his threats are idle.  The thugs of the world have a couple years in which to seize power and territory because Obama isn't going to commit to stopping them.