Ken Berwitz
Which part of President Obama\’s foreign policy is a more complete disaster: Afghanistan or Syria? The competition is fierce.
We already know – or I hope we do – that President Obama botched Syria completely. No leadership, talking tough about “red lines” that Syria ignored, with no consequences whatsoever, and now over a quarter million dead, millions of others streaming out of the country, and Putin\’s Russia the go-to world power there instead of us.
But let\’s not forget Afghanistan.
When President Obama took office, there were about 30,000 troops there. When things got bad, his military asked for a major infusion of troops, at least temporarily, to get the country through it. Obama waffled and waited for months, then gave his generals far fewer than they asked for….which, not surprisingly, did not resolve the problem.
Then he started pulling troops out (while bragging about how the lowering troop count was some kind of personal accomplishment – as if President Bush, not he, had raised it in the first place).
And now, as the taliban continues to surge there, he now, years too late, says “gee, maybe we should leave more of our guys there”.
Which is worse? Which did he blunder more on? And how do either of these foreign policy disasters stack up against what he left of Libya by bombing it for over a year without any congressional authorization, or his back-of-the-hand treatment of Israel, or his cave-in to Iran on its nuclear capability?
Democrats love to call Iraq the single biggest foreign policy blunder in US history, and a war fought over a lie about whether saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Both claims are completely fraudulent.
But don\’t hang by your thumbs waiting for them – or their media sycophants – to talk about the very real disasters visited upon us by this administration.
It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. Media coverage of the Obama administration proves this conclusively.
