It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obamas Dangerous Foreign Policy in The Middle East

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:24 PM
s point I'm still amazed that Obama just continues to ruin this country. Obama has made mistake after mistake since inauguration day 2009. Honestly I believe if a preisdent tried to ruin our country, I'm talking about from day one he actively sought to be remembered as the worst preisdent in the history of the Untied States of America he would surely to where Obama finds himself today. We all know of his blunders, his lies, is disregard for the constitution , and the crimnal scandals that never stop so for this post I'll focus on his dangerous foreign policy specifically the Middle East.

I served around 5 years as a intelligence analysts in the US Army. I had three deployments all in Afghanistan. I was fortunate to come back home in one piece unlike many others and I tell you all this not to be congratulated or anything like it, just to say war should only be made if theres a clear and apparent threat to our country.

Let's start with the horrfic civil war in Syria. My opinion on what the US stance should be may be in a minority but please hang in there with me for a second. The Syrian conflict should not in anyway be downplayed as just another sectarian war that has been waged for thousands of years in the region. Normally I would 100% be of the philosphy to let them all kill each other. To make matters worst the best plan for the strengthing of the the US would entail helping some extremists groups we have been fighting since 9/11. I personally would never want US involment but the benefits of this temporarily alliance would in the long run soldifiey the Untied States continued presence in the region for the foreseeable future while simultaneously weaking the power that Iran and Iran front groups (Hezzbollah) have6 in the reign.

First what I believe the American strategy should have been from the beginning. . 

Somebody, some agency that is keeping a thumb on the pulse of the world must of seen the strategic importance a unstable Syria could potentially mean to the Untied States and it's Gulf allies. I believe even a decent preisdent would have fully committed to backing are Arab friends in the Gulf. Whats great is despite there differences the Saudis and Israel are of both of firm belief that both of there greatest threat is Iran, especially a nuclear Iran. The back chanels between the two countrys are open and they seem to be on the same page. The enemy of my enemy... I'm not saying a proxy war would be easy but I do believe if we committed to supplying the rebel forces with means to wage war from the begaining we would be victorious. Iran I think we can all agree were going to support Assad regardless of what we did.

It's just if Assad and Syria was dealt with from the begaining how America has always operated we and our allies would be much better off. Iran would be a island. Syria and Irag both unstable around them. There cut off from the Mediterranean. The cards fell just right for us to change the game in the Middle East and Obama didn't pull the trigger. If he did we come out witha strong alliance of gulf states. Israel, Suadi Araubi, Qatar, Jordan all very happy we we did what America has said it would, we helped them when they asked and not only that it's a game changer. 

I know many wouldn't agree with my opinion. Probably mostly out of concern doing so would instigate a larger regional war or even WW3. I think if the situation was handled better from the start without the grandstanding and political rethroic keeping it a terrible civil war with only crazy extremist saying what they always say that it's Americas fault. I just dom't believe Russia would have risked a huge war for Assad but It still comes back to how Obama has handled himself on the worlds stage. Putin certainly doesn't respect or fear Obama or Obamas lead Untied States at all. I can't believe I'm saying this but Putin wouldn't get away with this with George Bush.

It's kind of ironic that by the time George Bush finished his two terms I was convinced that there would never be a worst preisdent for the rest of my life, Wow I think back on that a lot because I was totally convinced I was right and as it turns out I couldn't have been anymore wrong.

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Bcs8484

You want to support people like Osama Bin Laden who will turn against this country and attack our civilians? Great I am glad your not serving anymore. Or are you talking about MeK who has attacked the US military and even blew up the Iranian embassy in New York City? Yes Gulliani was the prosecutor there he should know best right that is why he is all buddy buddy with MeK and pushing for them to be our best friends in France.

Sometimes the enemy of our enemy is our enemy too!

And when it comes to Putin. He has been working with the US all along. The Cold War was a Dog and Pony Show as the US and Russia built armies after the word said no one could do it ever again after Hitler. Great way to get the world to let them do it right. How about the first IBM computer? Russia had one at the same time the US did and both shared the responsibility to build the software for it. The US won that. How about Russia holding part of the US as there territory and I am not talking about Alaska. That was the last piece. Where do you think the Russian River name came from by the Bohemian Grove?

Want something more recent? How about the joint efforts between the US and Russia after the Boston Bombing? The media spun it a different way I know. They both went after Social Media that the Boston Bombers used and put in spy software.

edit on 23-11-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by Bcs8484

I served around 5 years as a intelligence analysts in the US Army.

I find this questionable! Judging by the typos and grammatical errors in your post (something a competent analyst would not do as it leaves the analysis open to misinterpretation) I have to take the rest with a grain of salt.

I have read a few intelligence reports from private and declassified official sources such as Stratfor, DefenseIQ, DoD, DND, MoD and none make similar comparisons. Nothing personal but I find your argument less than valid.
edit on 11/23/2013 by Kukri because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Bcs8484

Here is my opinion, take it for what you will, I think there is a secret cold war going on between the U.S., Russia and China. The US Gov has little interest in the welfare of Syrians. The CIA involvement in Syria is eerily similar to the Bay of Pigs during the first cold war where the CIA attempted to oust Castro. This time it's failing a little slower, even through they are providing weapons and training to the Syrian rebels.

It's well known that Russia has interests in Syria. It is in their best interest that their ally (Assad) remains in power in Syria. Russia would, as they have stated, defend those interests with military action, hence, the CIA is using the rebels in much the same way they did during the Bay of Pigs to prevent an all out war with Russia.

Some of the past failed CIA overthrow/assassination ops in Syria include Operation Straggle, Operation Wappen and an assassination plot in 1957, just to provide a little context.

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by Bcs8484

Your language and syntax blows your claim of being an analyst.
Your thread is just one of many Obama hit pieces; Obama is following the neocon strategy in the ME started by Bush 1 and 2.

Preaching to the choir at ATS don't ya know?

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:06 PM
You seem to see Syria in very black or white sort of way. The US supports the rebels, the rebels win, Syria is now a happy ally and everybody dances. The war in Syria is and has always been very complex. The rebels are made up of various factions. The western backed rebels made up mostly ex Syrian military and Syrian civilian militias have from the start been supported by Arab arms ironically bought from Russia who is happy to sell to both sides, the rebels also had limited Western support to begin with because they have no reall organization beyond fighting which makes the vulnerable to the better organized radical groups. The radical groups were happy to work along side the rebels because they saw a good chance of the rebels being so weakened after Assads fall they could make a move and take over Syria. Of course once the West started arming the rebels recently the radicals saw them as a threat as well and the war is now a 3 way, well 4 if you count the Kurds who shoot at anybody who happens into their territory.

So what has been clear from the start is that unless the US and NATO were willing to completely commit to full scale invastion and long long occupation to support the Syrian rebels then nothing esle the West was going to do was really going to effect things. And we all know the US has no interest in another war.

However lets just say the US and NATO went all in to back the rebels as you suggest. If you have any knowledge of the area then you should know that a rebel victory would have lead to. Massive arms and manpower would have flooded into Lebanon, Iraq and the Palenstian territories. Iranian back insurgents now with manpower and arms flooding in from Assads defeated regime would begin a full scale civil war in Iraq. Lebanon would be completely over run with Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces taking complete control of the country. And all of this from a rebel win. Unless of course you expect another US surge into Iraq and also an invasion of Lebanon.

The only real good ending for the US in Syria is a peace settlement with power sharing but, with a removal of Assad. The US and the West has tried to play the game as safe as possible in Syria because the truth is their are no good or easy answers for Syria. On the plus side Irans fear of the Russians selling out their WMDs under western military threat like the did Syria has convince Iran to talk as they know they can not depend on the Russians.

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:23 PM
There is no good side in Syria so it really doesn't matter who wins IMO.What does bother me is the devils we seem to be arming.Do the idiots in Washington think these beheading sobs would be grateful to us were they to win power in Syria.hy the hell are we even involved is beyond me.

posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:10 AM
I was a little disappointed by the thread title. I was hoping to find out what Obama's foreign policy even is. Oh well, when any one figures it out, give me a call.

posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by Bcs8484

Well, your POV may also be the POV of many others, specially Americans.

However as an Analyst, you should know that a good analysis is possible only when all facts are on the table. Is that the case for you? A clear picture emerges only after inputs from secret service are collated with inputs from the other sources.

We do not know who is the bigger enemy for America? You think Shia; but maybe, just maybe, the analysis proves that is not the case.

So it is not so easy to prove Obama wrong.

posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 03:20 AM

There is no good side in Syria so it really doesn't matter who wins IMO.What does bother me is the devils we seem to be arming.Do the idiots in Washington think these beheading sobs would be grateful to us were they to win power in Syria.hy the hell are we even involved is beyond me.

I can tell you the prophecy. It will be SUNNI Muslim armies that will march against Israel and Europe. So killing Shia Iran may not help at all.

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:10 AM
In all my years as a researcher and as an annalist of that research I have never seen a poser to the level of the OP. Intelligence annalist would never release an incoherent rant with the writing skills of a six grader. Not to mention that individuals of this caliber are never Army and most have graduate degrees, law degrees, medical degrees and considerable experience in both the CIA and the FBI. Language skills are also a prerequisite for any kind of intelligence work-there are 19 different Arabic dialects spoken in Afghanistan-which one do you speak?

This is the kind of thing that really downplays the significance of places like ATS. It's very sad.

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:50 AM

American strategy

....should be to stay within it's own borders...for starters.

It was always a shock to me, how you guys just trample all over that fact...that you are a stranger in a strange land...fighting a war, not for anyone's freedom, but for certain (not even US) private interests. And you keep going on and on and on...about strategy...and American interests.

Get the faq out of there...

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 09:11 AM
Add this piece to the puzzle

Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own
Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

Saudi Arabia cannot be a strong nation. There are two big problems with Saudi:

a) It is dependent on export income from oil. It has no serious alternative.
b) It has very little farmland.

So while Saudis can sing and dance, shooting is a little above the top.

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

Which is why they enable the Israelis to do it.

As for the OP:

The only time we ever had any chance to get the rebels in Syria working credibly for us was extremely early one before every single jihad group in the known world got tangled up in the conflict. Maybe then and only if (and that's an IF so large I felt I needed to blow it up in type size) the rebels could remain separate from jihadis would we have made play and a credibly game change.

The problem is that Arabs, and Arab muslims especially, are not trustworthy and further than you can throw them.

Once that first few days had passed, we were left with no good options except to stay clear.

When the chem weapons attack happened, instead of immediately pulling the attack trigger, our first play should have been to try to put heavy diplo pressure on Putin to clean it up. Syria is his client state. Russia has a military presence there with a naval base and some 30,000 personnel (if I remember correctly). Had we done it correctly, we might even have had the backing of the world to put pressure on Putin to go in a do what he essentially gained all sorts of fame for doing anyhow - broker the deal to take out Syria's chem weapons. Then instead of Russia looking like the big dog in the Mid East, we would have remained the top dog.

But no, Obama blundered and tried to bomb Syria to look like the cowboy he's not.

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by ketsuko

Russia played smart. Russia withdrew its ships and visible forces much before US threats to attack from port of Tartus.

Then Russia moved some naval elements into Med as US forces built up. Chinese also did the same. This created a situation of confrontation not anticipated by the Americans.

Syria is not a client state of Russia in the sense of USSR. Arabs now do what they like. Russian influence is limited.

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:26 AM

I believe even a decent President would have fully committed to backing are Arab friends in the Gulf.

A decent President would not have started two wars based on lies. Also cut off buying oil, foreign aid and weapons for pennies on the dollar and let's see how many Arab friends we have in the Gulf.

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:38 AM

Obama is following the neocon strategy in the ME started by Bush 1 and 2.

The fact that Obama is following the same strategy that Bush43 did means that it's not a 'neocon strategy'. Obama is not a neo-conservative. Not even close. And he now owns whatever policies he's following for the middle east. Can't blame Bush43 for Obama's craving for war. That's all Obama ... he owns it.

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

This short memory of americans of forgetting the past is why you keep voteing in crap leaders.

You all blame obama ( who is crap) but forget bush so next election republicans get in, they will then do a crap job, so you all forget obama and next election you vote democrat and a democrat gets in again and does a crap job and so on and so on,

posted on Nov, 30 2013 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by Bcs8484

Your entire post is stupid and the fact you served as an intelligence analyst in no way qualifies you as a policy planner and is basically irrelevant to this topic - as such I don't know why you mentioned it.

Supporting terrorist groups, jihadists and Islamists (however temporarily) has proven extremely costly in the past. These elements openly state their opposition to the United States, especially those who have imported fighters from all around the world, including the US and Britain (these are potentially the most dangerous groups)

Funding and supporting these groups led to events such as 9/11 - therefore, it appears you have learnt nothing from Afghanistan, nor from your time in Afghanistan. Congratulations.

Even if the US did provide support to the rebels, it doesn't guarantee them victory. Assad forces still out-power and out-number the rebels and aid short of actual military intervention probably wouldn't change this.

It's just if Assad and Syria was dealt with from the begaining how America has always operated we and our allies would be much better off

Because America has always been so well off - see Iraq and Afghanistan. Not many people will agree with your post, not because it is controversial, but because it is stupid.

top topics


log in