In January, President Obama likened fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to a “jayvee team” in Lakers jerseys on the basketball court. Eight months later, that squad of bloodthirsty maniacs is playing quite a game of pickup. Occupying swaths of territory stretching from Syria into Iraq, ISIS stands in control of a landmass unprecedented in the annals of terrorist organizations, makes millions of dollars a day selling oil on the black market, has beheaded men and sold women into slavery, and now threatens to kill 40,000 Yazidis — an Iraqi sect ISIS accuses of devil-worship.

It was the plight of the Yazidis, stranded on a mountain, that ultimately compelled the president to initiate a humanitarian airlift of food and water, which he announced from the White House Thursday night. The president has also authorized a limited number ofair strikes on ISIS forces approaching the Yazidis. The mission, however, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, will be “very limited in scope.” This led Senator John McCain, in an exclusive interview with myDaily Beast colleague Josh Rogin, to ridicule the strikes as mere “pinpricks,” a reference to Obama’s insistence last year that the strikes he briefly supported in response to Assad’s chemical-weapons attacks would not be useless.

Asked seven years ago if the need to stave off potential genocide might convince him to change his mind about a total and precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, then-candidate Obama replied that it would not. “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said.

This cynical avowal, I wrote at the time, was an indication of what might become the “Obama doctrine,” which I described thusly: “The United States will remain passive in the face of genocide.” Seven years later, I regret to say, my prediction stands up pretty well.

In Syria, some 150,000 to 200,000 people have died as a result of President BasharAssad’s war on his own people. “The photos show crimes the likes of which we have not seen since Auschwitz,” international war-crimes prosecutor David Cranesaid last month upon viewing images of tortured and murdered Syrians. Never mind the innocent lives lost: Assad is an enemy of the United States, Iran’s sole Arab ally, and, as a backer of Hezbollah and Hamas, a major source of instability in the region. Equipping and training the moderate rebels who were once poised to defeat him was categorically in the American interest. But Obama never seriously entertained the idea of overthrowing Assad. Far from it: The first three years of his presidency saw one slavish attempt at conciliation after another, until Assad began murdering Syrians en masse and Obama, fecklessly, announced that the president-for-life must “step aside.”

In Libya, Obama did act to prevent a mass murder in Benghazi, however late and indecisively. But his failure to help support the post-Qaddafi government has contributed to today’s dire situation, with a security vacuum so perilous that the United States has evacuated its embassy.

As for the Yazidis, Obama seems more concerned with avoiding the appearance of American involvement than he does with saving innocent people about to be slaughtered. And if his “pinprick” attacks are not enough to defeat ISIS, there is no indication that he will up the ante to save innocent lives, never mind to regain the country that America, under his failed leadership, has lost to internecine warfare and Iranian machinations. “As commander-in-chief,” Obama said Thursday, “I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq.”

Guiding the administration’s hands-off approach to everything in the Middle East (everything, that is, except the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is the desire to forge accommodation with — or capitulation to — Iran. That’s why there has never been a serious effort to overthrow Assad, why Kerry attempted to intercede on Hamas’s behalf in the latest Gaza war (over the objections of not just Israel, but our other key regional allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia), and why Obama has been so reluctant to assert American power in Iraq, where Tehran now enjoys supreme influence over the Shiite-dominated government. “The pursuit of that accommodation is the great white whale of Obama’s Middle East strategy, and capturing it is all that matters; everything else is insignificant by comparison,” writes former Bush-administration official Michael Doran in a perceptive essay for Mosaic magazine. “The goal looms so large as to influence every other facet of American policy, even so seemingly unrelated a matter as a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.”

President Obama has a grand vision in mind, something no less than a wholesale realignment of the Middle East’s traditional alliance structures. This would be an ambitious agenda for any president, never mind one who, in discussion of another crisis, riffs about the obsolescence of the “Cold War chessboard.” Obama, in conversation with David Remnick earlier this year, envisioned a Middle East in which Iran “operate in a responsible fashion” and where “equilibrium” develops between Tehran and our traditional Sunni Arab partners. Hoping for the former is a dangerous fool’s errand; the latter spits in the eyes of our allies.

So pity the Yazidis, the Kurds, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the rest of America’s erstwhile friends in the region. They had the naïveté to put their trust in Barack Obama.


雅兹迪人被困在深山之中,让奥巴马总统在周四晚不得不宣布,进行人道主义空投食物和饮用水,同时下令对靠近雅兹迪的伊斯兰国部队进行空中打击,然而这项打击任务,根据白宫新闻秘书Josh Earnest所说,“将是有限度的”。参议员John McCain在接受独家访谈的时候称,这种空中打击力度只是“隔靴瘙痒”,在去年,奥巴马只是粗略的证实阿萨德使用化学武器,就进行空中打击,即使那次打击的力度比起这次也有过之而无不及。



在叙利亚,由于巴沙尔对其人民开战,造成了15万到20万人死亡,国际战争罪行检察官David Crane在上月察看了被折磨和被杀害叙利亚人的情况说到,“有些照片上的罪行,堪比奥斯维辛集中营”。阿萨德是美国的敌人,死伊朗唯一的盟友,是真主党和哈马斯的靠山,是地区不稳定的主要根源,不要缅怀那些无辜平民丧生,去装备和训练那些平庸的叛军,让他们去和阿萨德交战理所当然最符合美国的利益。也许奥巴马从来没有想过推翻阿萨德政权,他总统任期前三年狗一样的在和平调解,直到阿萨德开始大规模处决叙利亚人民,奥巴马才气急败坏的宣布,想当一辈子总统“滚一边去。”



表明对中东的一切(除了以色列和巴基斯坦冲突)撒手不管,是因为想要和伊朗逐步和解,或者说是妥协。这也是为什么奥巴马从来没有认真想过要推翻阿萨德政权,为什么国务卿可以要在上一次加沙战争要代表哈马斯的利益进行调节,为什么奥巴马如此的不情愿维持美国在伊拉克的武力,而伊朗却非常满足其对伊拉克什叶派为主导政府的影响力。布什时代的官员Michael Doran在一份杂志中写到,“追求和解,现在才是奥巴马政府在中东政策,除此其他事情都不重要,这个目标非常重要,以至于影响美国的所有其他决策,甚至影响到了看似与之不相关的以色列哈马斯停火协议。”

奥巴马心中有大远见,其实说出来也不过是将美国在中东的盟友结构重新颠倒排列,这项任务对于任何总统来说都是雄心壮志,更不用说在乌克兰危机中,有人会反复提到一个过时的词“冷战棋盘”。奥巴马在今年早些时候和David Remnick有一次谈话,那时他预想中东的未来,“伊朗将会负责任的采取军事行动”,伊朗和其他逊尼派阿拉伯国家会相互制衡发展。指望第一点实现完全是无用功,而第二点,则是在侮辱我们现在的盟友。



ISIS is a JV team. Yes, and the Schutzstaffel were that level too at one time. New pogroms, same source. Must be dealt with the same way.



Obama is wasting another crisis. He should extract a promise from Yazidis and Christians that they can be relocated to the United States if they promise to vote Democratic, and their children will vote Democratic, and grandchildren.


Has Obama forgotten the parades the Iraqis threw us for liberating them? The Iraqis pled with us to not leave and Obama told them f u. Our poor friends ....


to be fair, I don't think ANY of those countries ever put their "trust" in Obama.



更多 >>


评 论