Midknight Review discusses the critical nature of the Obama retreat from the Middle East.

Midknight Review discusses the critical nature of the Obama retreat from the Middle East.

2387 share

since 9/1/2010 to

4/3/2014. 

We have rewritten parts of this article and posted the updated version on a.m. 12/3/2010. This is one of our "most read" articles. nearly 2,000 hits on this post, with a registry of readers each and every day - 8/28/2011.

Click on image to enlarge.

Update: 8/28/2011 - You should know that since this post was initially written, the Obama doctrine for the Middle East has not changed, dramatically. He says he wants out of Iraq by the end of 2012, but he promised to out by July of 2010. His reluctance to leave is due, in part, to the fear that Iraq, a war "won" by George Bush, might re-ignite should Obama leave the region, entirely. George Bush intended to keep a military presence in the region for some time. Obama ran against that strategy. In the end, he may have to pull out, entirely, in order to draw in the radical Marxist crowd that put him in office in 2008. He promised the closing of GITMO. That is not going to happen. He promised full troop withdrawal by the Fall of 2010 (from Iraq and Afghanistan - again, that seems very unlikely). He promised a civilian trial for KSM and his henchmen, a subtle effort at putting Bush 43 and Dick Cheney on trial. Of course, that blew up in his face last year and there are no plans to try KSM before the elections. KSM is going to GITMO, however, but, to take him there before the elections would be a huge political/public defeat in the eyes of the radical Leftist crowd. I do not anticipate this happening, for that reason. While he has had modest success in the killing of bin Laden and the demise of Gidafi in Libya, the national aspect of his foreign strategy has failed, miserably, and may be a deciding influence in his bid for re-election. End of update.

Because of the Commander's surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan this morning, and the popularity of this article, we have decided to repost the essay. While in Afghanistan, Obama visited the military hospital there, and presented at least 5 purple hearts. All in all, the visit was a very good thing and appreciated by the troops.

The country of Georgia, to the north on our map, has become a critical issue as relates to the developing geopolitical - circumstance that is the Middle East.

One of the first actions taken by Obama after becoming president was to unilaterally cancel agreements with Georgia and Poland (not shown) for the construction of missile defense systems in those countries. The Bush Administration made these agreements in the last year of its term, making Russia angry enough to threaten an invasion of these nations. Obama took the position that the expressed anger of the Russians was evidence of a diplomatic breakdown between the US and Russia, one that he proposed to "fix" with an initial offering of a toy/plastic "reset" button. In the end, all that was accomplished by Obama was to humor the Russians (emphasis on "humor") and anger both Georgia and Poland. The Obama action, unilateral and capricious, sent a message to those countries standing in opposition to the likes of Russia that the US is no longer concerned with the national security of those European nations standing in the shadow of their one time Soviet oppressor. Worse yet, it tells the qualified observer that the new Administration does not understand the importance of a European/American presence to the very security of the United States, itself !!

Now that Iran has been allowed to become a nuclear power, the Obama action may prove to be catastrophic to the stability of the region. America is a nation of peace but, peace through strength. Its presence in Georgia and Poland would have helped to insure a peaceful stability in the face of an advancing and imperialistic Russia, not to mention the mind numbing aggression of Iran. Understand that Georgia and Poland WANTED partnership with the United States. They wanted the missile defense systems Obama so glibly dismissed. And what did Obama get for this escapade into forensic idealism? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Understand that an American retreat from this part of the world opens the doors to a critical advancement of Russian and Iranian concerns. The United States is the only world power capable of standing against these two aggressors.

Obama's Middle Eastern strategy includes an aversion to being in the region at all. If things go his way, we -- the United States -- will have no strategic place in the area by end of 2012. He is taking the influence of the States out of the region as fast as he can. Our troops are not coming home so much as they are running home.

The only remaining question has to do with the role of the military's opinion in all this. The military mind fully understands the critical nature of the Obama Mid East Strategy and does not agree with it as is evidenced by the public discussions of two of our generals (i.e. General McChrystal and Gen. James Conway ). As maddening as this is for his Marxist base, it is safe to say that the military does have some influence with the Novice Commander.

He did not close GITMO. He followed the battle plan of Bush for Iraq. He ultimately listened to the generals seeking a residual force in Iraq, i.e. the 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq. (9/27/11 Note: it is now clear that Obama will leave no residual force in Iraq. He has begun a troop reduction that will leave just 3,000 to defend themselves and help as military advisers for a time. How long they will stay is unclear but what is clear is the danger in which this force finds itself. Obama, as the Commander In Chief, is clearly putting out remaining troops in grave danger. It is a well guarded secret that the larger military force has a very low opinion of their commander - some reports have Obama with only a 20% approval within military ranks). He was seen as "caving" to military demands for a surge in Afghanistan and his rhetorical insistence that all troops will be out of the region (Afghanistan and Iraq) by the middle of 2011 is full of equivocation. Our point, here, is that Obama is listening to his commanders at some level, contrary to popular belief.

While Obama is listening, it is not clear as to the final outcome in the Middle East. Will he surrender to pressure from his Leftist base and leave the entire region before the 2012 elections? We have his decision with regard to Georgia and Poland, a decision that seems to argue for an unforgiving political action on his part, repercussions be damned. The concessions listed above cannot be considered "minor," and may indicate an evolving opinion on the part of Obama. Is he really a pragmatic liberal, as some claim or a "poll driven," self centered politician ? We may not know the answer for some time to come but there is hope that in matters military, he is more a pragmatist than not at least as relates to the military's role in the Middle East "solution." If so, the wars of the Middle East just might be successfully prosecuted. But than again, maybe not.

Point of post: to present a predictive summary of the mess that is the Obama Middle East strategy; to put his catastrophic and unilateral decision to violate missile defense agreements with Georgia and Poland into context; to allow for a growing (?) military influence in the Obama strategy; and to define our response to developing concerns for the region as relates to Russian and Iranian intentions.

Update 9/27/11: understand that Obama is doing nothing about the developing circumstances borne of the rebellions we know as the "Arab Spring." In the early months of 2009, he ignored the "green revolution" in Iran and closed his eyes to the evolving nuclear threat that is Iran. In fact, he went on vacation the day Iran fired up the first of their nuclear plants.

Without any diplomatic "advance notice," Obama called for revolution in Egypt. The aftermath of which has presented a new government entity that is being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, a government that may be more antagonistic to Israel than the governmental dictatorship just overthrown.

We were unilaterally drawn into Libya, by Obama, without seeking any degree of congressional consensus; a wartime situation that was to last "days, not weeks," according Obama. We are still there nearly six months later and no one knows the final outcome - a Libya that is "friend" or "foe."

Understand that before next summer, there is the distinct possibility - bordering on "probability" -- that the Middle East will be in flames and Israel fighting for its very life. In fact, the current Palestinian push for statehood is because Obama has lost any opportunity to pursue a diplomatic solution, in the eyes of the Palestinians. His policy of befriending Palestine and negotiating out of a trust generated because of that friendship has proven to be nothing more than an Obama fantasy. The Novice tried to maintain a certain "status quo" with Israel while demonstrating to the Palestinians that he could be tough on their life-long foe, an impossible task, one bordering on the unintelligent. Turns out, the divide between the two people is so great that only a well strategized diplomacy can work, ala the previous efforts of the Carter and Clinton Administrations. Say what you will about both men, their foreign policies were much more their forte than were their domestic plans.

Funny. Both Administrations were Democrat, the same party as Obama. The 1979 Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel remains in force to this day. Bill Clinton's foreign policy efforts, beginning in 1993, shaped the foreign policy of our country for more than a decade, well into the Bush Adminstration. When we contrast the successes of both Carter and Clinton with Obama's "do next to nothing" foreign policy approach, it is almost as if Obama was/is completely unaware of his predecessors and the successful strategies they used in dealing with [especially] Middle East affairs. Could that be?

We know that he does not believe in "protocol." Could it be that he does not give a hoot about history, either, unless, of course, it is the history he is writing??