Header Image (book)


Monday, November 30, 2015

Obama The Traitor: His Plan To Defeat ISIS All Smoke And Mirrors

Obama is living up to his Islamic middle name: Hussein.

The entire November 27 article in the Telegraph (emphases mine):

Barack Obama plan to defeat Isil dismissed by US intelligence experts: Former and serving diplomats and intelligence officials tell the Telegraph that President Obama's hopes of defeating Islamic State are based on "smoke and mirrors"

By Ruth Sherlock, Washington and Richard Spencer, Middle East Editor
7:00AM GMT 27 Nov 2015

President Barack Obama's attempts to destroy Isil have been derided by Western diplomats and his own former intelligence officials.

Mr Obama has insisted that the United States will not change the strategy that he said was already “containing” Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and would work eventually to “degrade and destroy” it.

But in a series of candid interviews with the Telegraph, Western diplomats and intelligence officials - current and former - have angrily dismissed the approach as a “smoke and mirrors” public relations exercise founded on little substantive or effective action.

“It’s smoke and mirrors and that is the dirty little secret,” said Derek Harvey, one of Mr Obama’s senior former intelligence officials, a Middle East specialist, who said he resigned from his job in frustration at the administration's handling of the conflict.

Many members of both the American and the European intelligence and diplomatic apparatus say the chaos in Iraq and Syria is caused by Mr Obama’s determination to press on with an “exit strategy” from the region, signalled by the withdrawal from Iraq.

The intelligence official said this had created a sense of apathy, with departments feeling they were being judged by how much they were focused on “detaching” from the Middle East, rather than on the success of the policies they were actually implementing there.

Experts in the region had also been withdrawn in case they concentrated on achieving results.

“Who is in charge?” Mr Harvey said. “Where is the intelligence community? It is totally broken on this.”

Two active intelligence sources told the Telegraph that there was a sense of disarray inside the various intelligence agencies.

Official policy is to defend the strategy of gradual disengagement and limited military action against Isil, saying that more direct options might have a “satisfying” immediate visible effect, but would prove damaging in the long run.

That policy depends on American “containing” Isil, as Mr Obama claimed shortly before the attacks in Paris, co-ordinated by Isil, which claimed 130 lives.

“Isil have expanded geographically to eight other countries, taking advantage of civil wars in Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan and so on,” the intelligence source, who served in Baghdad at the height of the post-invasion period, said. “They are taking advantage in places where there is lack of effective governance and highly tribalised societies.

“We have not done anything to really hurt them. Even in the areas they have been formerly pushed out of, they continue to operate covertly and they mostly control the largest Sunni Muslim cities outside of Baghdad.”

Diplomats privately agree that a campaign of relatively sporadic air strikes alone cannot be the road to success.

“Isil is not the homogenous block they want us to believe it is,” one very senior Western diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, said. “If you look at military tactics it’s clear that it’s not just one entity, so you cannot have one answer.”

Another diplomat said Mr Obama had allowed the idea to become prevalent that taking on Isil was a separate issue from countering the Assad regime, which could be left till later - even though that was not American or European policy.

The diplomat said it was not possible to rationally separate Isil from the Syrian regime. He said they were two mutually dependent evils.

Diplomats and analysts have been arguing for years now that the survival of the regime and its bombing of civilian areas drive support from the less successful Western-backed rebel groups to jihadists like al-Qaeda’s branch, Jabhat al-Nusra, and Isil.

Meanwhile, Damascus has itself remained a key funding source for Isil as it buys up black-market oil produced in wells under the extremists’ control.

A key problem remains that the current rules of engagement limit the US in what it can legally do militarily. Under the current authorities, it “takes months” to close down bank accounts belonging to Isil jihadists when they are discovered.

It also limits the US ability to fight against the jihadists’ powerful propaganda: “Why is the hacking group Anonymous able to take down 5,000 Isil Twitter accounts and the government not? It’s an authority issue," Mr Harvey, the former official, said.

The Obama administration’s legal authorisation for the use of military force against Isil derives from measures passed by congress in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

White House officials sought a new authorisation from Congress earlier this year that would allow it to better tailor rules of engagement and strategy to combat Isil, on and off the battlefield, but it was blocked by Republicans.

Whether any strategy that is envisaged by any side will do more than send an ever-increasing number of bombs on to an enemy that has shown itself capable of “sucking up” long-range attacks with relative ease so far is another question.
Think about the progression over the course of less than two weeks.

On November 12, Barack Hussein Obama tells George Stephanopoulos that ISIS is definitely "contained" and, in essence, not an existential threat because the Moslem savages are not gaining strength.

Then on November 13 come the Paris jihad slaughters.

Next, on November 21, Brussels, the headquarters of NATO and the seat of the European Union, goes on lockdown for several days.

On November 25, Barack Hussein Obama addresses the American people to tell us "the combined resources of our military, our intelligence, and our homeland security agencies are on the case" and "be vigilant."

Our intelligence agencies are "on the case"?  Really?  Remember this from the linked article?
“Where is the intelligence community? It is totally broken on this.”


  1. Some words have specific meanings, and that meaning matters. "Traitor" is one of those words. Levying this charge only serves to cheapen the very real incompetence, misfeasance and delusion emanating from this Administration.

    Using the intelligence community as a context-free scapegoat is becoming tiresome. The problem lies in senior leader decision-making and risk assessment, where it concerns targeting of ISIL personnel and infrastructure.

    1. CI,
      To the best of my recollection, I have never before stated that Obama is a traitor.

      However, the evidence is piling up that there is more going on than incompetence, misfeasance and delusion

      The problem may indeed lie in senior leader decision-making and risk assessment. Ultimately, though, the buck stops at the desk of the Oval Office.

      I stand by the charge that I've leveled in this blog post.

    2. CI,
      I am typically very measured in my blogging efforts.

      I draft posts all the time, then sit on them so as to give them some consideration instead of just flying off the handle.

    3. “Woe to the makers of literal translation, who by rendering every word weaken the meaning! It is, indeed, by doing so that we can say the letter kills and the spirit gives life.”

      ~ Voltaire (1694-1778)

  2. Received a long document from an ISIS supporter last week. The writer mentioned that ISIS is exporting $40 million of oil per month and noted that the oil fields are functional in spite of months of bombing.

    My rational thought was the same as former CIA director Michael Morell. The goal is to keep infrastructure intact that provides revenue streams for future legitimate government.

    1. Prince,
      I understand the idea that of providing revenue streams for future legitimate government.

      But what is the more immediate harm? In my view, too great to continue on as the coalition forces are now doing.

  3. Finally, this is coming out in the open. Like CI, I too believe and hope that this is malfeasance, not treachery.

    This is what we get when we elect an amateur with no experience, who then hires academics and other inexperienced amateurs to advise him.

    1. What's the difference, SF? In pragmatic terms Malfeasance and Treachery are one and the same.


      Because in the REAL world –– as opposed to the merely LEGALISTIC and THEORETICAL –– RESULTS are ALL that COUNT.

    2. What's the difference? If it really is treason, then we have a much deeper problem on our hands that will not be solved by an election.

  4. The more immediate harm is a POTUS who seems incapable of a cogent foreign policy. I agree with Silverfiddle. The "talent pool" is a bit of a dead pool.

    Meanwhile, with the world in flames, the Commander in Chief prioritizes a photo shoot for the cover of an LGBT magazine. Yep, that is important.

    Underbelly politics....

    1. Prince,
      That photo shoot is damning of him as POTUS. He has demeaned and disgraced the Office over and over again.

  5. I no longer believe that the problem is mere malfeasance.

    1. I never did. OVOMIT was BORN and RAISED to promote, to serve, and to implement an ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA.

      THAT has been obvious from Day One. That few cared and thus ensured OVOMIT'S victory ––– TWICE!!! ––– is clear PROOF that The Good Ship USA is foundering on the rocks and will soon GO DOWN.

  6. While Obama is blabbing in Paris about global warming, we have the following....

    GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates': SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent

    Won't matter to Obama. He's busy drafting executive orders to address global warming. The regs are coming. Big time. In fact, some have already arrived:

    Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving.

    From the link:

    Over 2,000 regulations are now being written. Of these, 144 are deemed “economically significant”—that is, expected to cost Americans $100 million or more each.

    This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring. The regulations span the full scope of American life, ranging from labeling requirements for pet food, new test procedures for battery chargers, mandated paid sick leave for contractors, and automatic speed limiters for trucks to a dozen new rules limiting energy use (and increasing the price) of everything from furnaces and dishwashers to dehumidifiers.

    One of these new rules may be of special interest to Americans sitting down to their Thanksgiving dinner: mandated labeling of serving sizes for food that “can reasonably be consumed at one eating occasion.”

    Although none of the rules have been adopted yet, the intent is clear....

    Treachery or treason?

    1. I see a giant hot air-induced ozone hole opening up over Paris...

    2. SF,
      No kidding!

      I watched some of the live broadcasts today. Obama is still insisting that uniting against global warming will curb terrorism.


      No logical sense to his statement that anti-global-warming will convert ISIS to better "behavior." Anyone who believes what Obama is saying in Paris is certifiable!

  7. Treachery: an act of perfidy or treason. How do consumer regulations [that I oppose] amount to the definition of either similar term? I'm just curious as to how you make the link.

    1. CI,
      The deliberate attempt to redistribute wealth (as well as income).

      Consumer regulations are a tool of tyranny -- if carried to the extreme. I see them being carried to the extreme. Do you?

      As you have said several times, nobody else has the right to deprive me of the benefits of my own labor. Or some such statement you made several times. How did you state that?

      Higher consumer prices also puts money into the governments' pockets. Yes, plural possessive of government.

    2. I don't disagree with anything you've written; as I have indeed said the very same. But tarring unadulterated Statism and bureaucratic burden, writ large, with treason.......tars both major parties and elected representatives alike.

      It begs the philosophical questions: is tyranny definably treason, or just a political tool?

    3. CI,
      is tyranny definably treason

      At some point, under the parameters of our Constitution, the overreach of bureaucratic burden devolves into tyranny. IMO, that point is here.

      Let's think about "the greater good" and "the right thing to do" -- concepts and words which the Left loves. The middle class is still a majority in our nation. Something that destroys the middle class violates the spirit and the letter of our Constitution.

    4. Understanding the Concept of Figurative Language

      Figurative language goes beyond the literal meanings of words so that the reader through heightened imagery gains new insights into the meaning of objects or subjects at hand.

      Here are a few examples:

      Her porcelain complexion gleamed like alabaster in a moonlit garden.

      The sky misses the sun at night.

      The poorest man is the richest, and the rich are poor.

      The moaning and the groaning of the bells ... (Poe)

      When he moves, he moves fast like a cheetah on the Serengeti.

      Her head was spinning from from too much new information.

      The toast leaped out of the toaster.

      I'm so hungry I could eat the side of a barn.

      The Sea lashed out in anger at the ships, unwilling to tolerate another battle.

      Melting snowmen acting the Sentinels of Spring!

      If I've told you once, I’ve told you a million times, "Go clean up your room!"

      "The soft bigotry of low expectations."

    5. Don't be so hard on yourself, I think everyone here understands your reliance on appeals to emotion.

  8. At some point, under the parameters of our Constitution, the overreach of bureaucratic burden devolves into tyranny. IMO, that point is here.

    Agreed. there's no question that tyranny exists on multiple fronts and on many levels of or government apparatus. But does tyranny equal treason? I ask this, because it's not just the current Administration that has brought us to this point.

    1. In my view, the level of tyranny here has reached the point of treason.

      You are correct that of administrations have waded into tyrannical territory, but in my view the Obama Administration has stepped into treason.

      Again, this is my view -- indeed, my conviction after giving the matter a great deal of thought, as is my wont. I don't expect others to share my view on this matter.

    2. I definitely share your view.
      Those that subvert the Constitution by means other than those spelled out, in that document, to change it are committing treason. It is the ultimate law of the land and as such attempting to destroy it is treason.

      Those unwilling to speak that word have fallen to the left wing in its attempt to destroy the Constitution by means of political correctness, limits on free speech and extralegal acquisition of authority by state and Federal government with the enthusiastic help of the Federal Judiciary.

    3. And CI, "But does tyranny equal treason?".
      That question is asinine. Treasonous acts are tyrannical in all minds except the mind of the tyrant and tyranny is treasonous in the face of the Constitution which seeks to eliminate it as a governing force.

  9. For what it's worth, I think your post is dead on. I for one have not been measured in my calling him a traitor or worse and I freely admit that. However in my view, from the first time he not only spit on the constitution but in fact turned his back on the very principles and ideals this country was founded on I have felt he is in fact a traitor to his country.

    I did in fact read his book before he was elected and at that time I felt he was going to be as bad or worse as it has turned out which in turn brings me back to a question I have asked many times.

    "We the people" allowed this to happen, ignoring the warnings and our own ideals. The MSM marching lockstep perpetuated the fraud that is Obama. So are "We the People" going to finally stand up against the treason of not only this President but those in Congress of both parties who refuse to do the jobs they were elected for or are we going once again stand back and let the country continue to go to hell?

    I do not ask this lightly. This is a defining moment in our history and whether one wants to look at it open eyed or not, it starts at this moment in time with the traitor in the White house and his allies.

    Great post and again right on

    1. Joseph,

      I greatly appreciate the analysis you provided in your above comment.

      PS: Thank you complimenting me on this blog post. I appreciate your support.

    2. I've been reading it for a while now and have added you to my blog list to follow.

    3. Joseph,

      I have added your blog to my blog list, but I haven't yet gotten around to updating my displayed blog roll.

  10. In a way I guess that's my point. This started long before Obama but with him in office it accelerated to warp speed. we are in deep doo doo to say the least

  11. That article really sums it up. So much truth in one column it's scary. If I had to pick just one paragraph to repeat it would be:

    Many members of both the American and the European intelligence and diplomatic apparatus say the chaos in Iraq and Syria is caused by Mr Obama’s determination to press on with an “exit strategy” from the region, signalled by the withdrawal from Iraq.

    Obama is just pretending that he ended the war on Iraq and that terrorism was "on the run." It's all politics to him. He never views national security except through the lens of his far left ideology which blames America for all the world's problems.

    Also, I never heard of the official cited in the article. I note that many of Obama's former Secretaries of Defense have written books and given interviews equally critical of Obama's failed strategy but they should have resigned at the time to make the point.

    We are just continuing to march into this thing with our eyes closed and the consequences will be deadly!

    1. Mike,
      It's both scary and depressing.

      The outcomes of all this are going to be horrific.

    2. If we take the right wing's advice and indiscriminately bomb the area, how do we prevent the disease from metastasizing beyond control into Libya, Nigeria and Jordan for example.

      ISIS has not been expanding its territory and maybe the best thing that can be done is to try to contain it.

      If Turkey sees certain policies as strengthening the PKK, how do we or Russia counter that?

      I'm not saying the right hasn't thought this out but they have NEVER had an effective policy in the Middle East so I would think they'd be sufficiently circumspect to be less strident.

    3. What right wing do you speak of, Ducky? The one that spawned that wussy New Dealer Reagan that talked to Gorbachev instead of nuking him?

      When / if the war on terrorism ever actually begins we'll be nuking Mecca and daring Muslims to not thank us for it.

    4. That makes a lot of sense, Beamish.

      You might have to wait till Cruz is elected for the Apocalypse, however.

    5. You say Apocalypse like it's a bad thing ;)

      We've given the left's approach to terrorism a good 14 year run. It's time to show the world what a MOAB can do to a refugee camp.

  12. Much of the world has apparently taken stupid pills. How else to explain that so many are willing to allow National suicide? The beast grows, unabated, and our Muslim President smiles to himself.

  13. Humanity will always take great pains to ignore:

    An Elephant in the Drawing Room

    An Alligator under the Dining Room Table

    A Rhinoceros in the Rumpus Room

    A Cobra in the Conservatory

    A Naked Lady in an Elevator

    In short mankind will do just about ANYTHING to AVOID CONFRONTING an UNPLEASANT or PERPLEXING TRUTH.

    However the legalists and rationalizers among us strive to deny it, WE ARE NOT RATIONAL CREATURES.

  14. I just saw a clip of B.O. conflating Islamic terrorism as a result of anthropogenic climate change and the US as one of the main culprits of such. I can't help but to harken back to this: Put em' together and what have you got, BIBBIDI-BOBBIDI-BOO!


    1. Due to the ongoing scarcity of water, you will see more unrest in arid areas. Doesn't seem controversial.

    2. Jon,
      I think that I know the clip you mentioned..

      From day one of his Presidency, Obama has taken EVERY opportunity to paint the United States as the greatest culprit of all time, along the lines of the Great Satan. Obama will continue to do so for the rest of his life.

    3. Dick,
      Cite statistics to prove that the area is more arid than previously.

    4. Duck,
      Certainly I will accept Daniel Pipes's statements as evidence. Before I started blog, he and I corresponded a bit. We have some disagreements, but I do believe that he is a man of integrity.

      I note that Israel has solved the water problems. Hmmmmm....

  15. I live in an "arid area" and we have had plenty of water lately. Are you suggesting that the ME, mostly desert in recorded history, should be or was recently some sort of garden?

    Off Topic and BTW: How about those Broncos!

    1. Pats should be okay. Gronks not seriously injured and Amendola should be back so they have someone who can handle a punt.

      Seriously, even for the NFL that was a poorly officiated game.

      But Pats should be able to finish with the number one seed.
      See you in Foxboro.

    2. That's rich, the Pat's complaining about "officiating".

    3. They aren't the only ones. It's been poor this year.

  16. Screw winning. I'm happy my Rams have hospitalized half the quarterbacks they've faced this year.

  17. I see the Great Gasmaked Philosopher is back.

    Ducky has a point but as usual it is on the top of his pin head. The problem can not be solved until we get adult leadership not beholden to Turkey. Obama has been wilfully coddling a double dealing regime in Ankara. As Obama refuses to get Ankara into line the problem will get worse.

    We should stand by the Kurds. If it means spanking Turkey so be it.

    1. Beak!

      Good to see you here.

      Beamish checks in here now and then. He doesn't have a blog, though.

      Obama has been wilfully coddling a double dealing regime in Ankara.



We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.