The Obama Doctrine of Appeasement
When Obama was elected, he made a speech in Cairo that was tantamount to the second coming of Christ if you were to listen to the progressives and liberals who fawn (see anything by MSNBC) over everything he does. By reaching out the Muslim world, Obama was supposed to have fixed everything that Bush got wrong when dealing with Muslims.
However, Obama being the great statesman of the 21st Century; if not of all time – what else would you expect from “god” – has worked quite hard at failing miserably in fixing the U.S.’s relations with the Muslim world. At best, one can say he has implemented a policy of appeasement to the hard-line Muslims around the world.
Egypt – Hosni Mubarak is the ex-president of Egypt who Obama pressured into eventually resigning his post because the will of the Egyptian people must be respected. Egypt under Mubarak, while not our strongest ally, has been much more receptive to working with us than say…Iran. Now, Obama has allowed groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (I feel the need to mention that the site was blocked on my computer because it was labeled Muslim extremism) to throw out Mubarak, destabilize a country, which will eventually be replaced with hard-line Muslims (Remember the 1979 overthrow of the Shah in Iran – same story; different country.)
Iran – Obama said nothing while thousands of people protested against last summer. It led to the famous confrontation with Major Garrett where he asked, “What took so long?” Now, it seems that Iran has continued its nuclear program despite Obama’s protestations to the contrary.
Libya – Protestors rose up against the rule of Qadaffi. Obama for some reason decided that the U.S. would not play an active role in stopping the brutal repression of the Libyan people (even though Mubarak had to step down). Then after being upstaged by France, Obama took the “calculated risk” of drone strikes to support the rebels who have been depicted as being associated with al Qaeda. (However, Qadaffi is still in power.)
So, for those keeping score, Obama has sided with either hard-line Muslims in Egypt and potential terrorists in Libya. So, is his appeasement of Muslims making things better for the U.S. or worse?
Then, in Iran, when faced with a self-avowed hard-line Muslim, Obama offers soft statements “condemning” Iran’s suppression of protest. It was a clear case of saber rattling and Ahmadinejad called him on it by referring to Obama as an “…inexperienced and amateur politician.”
Now, for the one sane country in the region, Obama stated that Israel must return to its 1967 borders. That would be the way to a lasting peace with the Muslims.
Once again, Obama is attempting to appease the Muslims.
Fortunately, Netanyahu realizes that appeasement will not work. He has declared that an indefensible peace will not last. That Israel will negotiate, but not with terrorists and not with hard-liners who want to see the destruction of the Jewish state.
Netanyahu realizes that Obama is a lot like Neville Chamberlain. Except that it would be Israel who would have to pay for Obama’s weakness.