Surrender-in-Chief

President Obama, our elected Commander-in-Chief, has demonstrated over and over his naiveté in foreign policy. If you can point to one successful, tactical foreign policy decision, then you’re a magician because there isn’t one. North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Eastern Europe’s missile defense shield, Israel, Lebanon, Arab Spring, Red Lines.

Likewise, his military acumen as a warrior is totally laughable. Except for the fact that he is responsible for our sons and daughters in harm’s way. He fights wars based on timetables instead of results. And he announces them, not just to his political hacks but, to the enemy. He creates a false narrative about the Benghazi attack, and broadcasts apologies to the Islamist goons in Pakistan about a movie that they likely never saw. As if they will do anything other than laugh at his amateur hour.

Withholding judgment whether Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter (an investigation will tell), this latest prisoner swap (he does negotiate with terrorists) is yet another example of how far Barack Obama will go to 1) stick it to the military, 2) appease terrorists in hoping (“hope” is not a strategy) that they’ll like us, 3) let these 5 terrorist kingpins go free after one year (who were supposed to be detained until the cessation of hostilities, ie. indefinitely). That is, if Qatar doesn’t release them or allow them to escape beforehand, and 4) he finally has a chance to give preference or weight to an Islamist goon, over an American. When the era of slavery was coming to an end, there was a time when slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. But today, President Obama (who claims to be Black) has a chance to exercise a little payback. Bergdahl weighs in at 1/5. One American, in exchange for the 5 most dangerous terrorists on the planet.

And that makes sense to who? Makes one think that President Obama is on the wrong side in this war. Problem is, he thinks he’s on the right side.

Link: Obama defends operation to rescue U.S. soldier from Taliban

Obama Doctrine, Serial Killer, What’s The Difference?

No longer will the Commander-in-Chief of the United States fight wars the old-fashioned way, to win them. He now says his new strategy is to let the local ill-equipped (in so many ways) villagers determine the future of our sons and daughters in harm’s way.

This so-called “new” strategy he has for our armed forces is to train the locals so they can carry the fight. If my memory serves me, we’ve been training the Afghan government to train their “soldiers” for the last ten years, and now he says we’re going to keep on doing the same thing? Only with way less of our troops to be around for protection. He calls it, wait for it, My Brother’s Keeper Task Force.

“We have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat – one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stir up local resentments,” Obama said. “We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.”

If, after ten years, the Afghan government doesn’t know how to train its “military” to fight against terrorism, then the only responsible thing to do with our troops is to bring them home. Don’t leave them there to die at the hands of the dirtbag who is supposed to be on our side. He is charged with being the keeper of our brothers and sisters. But he won’t.

President Obama is delusional when it comes to fighting a war and Islamic terrorism. He isn’t in it to win it. He’s in it to end it. Only with the added idiocy of sacrificing our own men and women so he can look good politically, in his own troubled little mind.

Link: Obama’s counterterrorism doctrine: Let locals lead the fight