British defense analyst blasts Obama military and foreign policies as “clueless”

posted at 12:01 pm on January 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

This comes not from an armchair analyst, but a senior adviser to the British military — our closest allies in war and diplomacy. Sir Hew Strachan doesn’t think highly of George Bush’s foreign policies and war strategies, but as he says, at least Bush had strategies. Barack Obama … not so much:

President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.

Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”

Strachan, a current member of the Chief of the Defense Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, cited the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11. “If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

Strachan is particularly disenchanted with Obama’s handling of Syria and the red lines for chemical weapons use, as the Daily Mail reports:

‘What he’s done in talking about Red Lines in relation to Syria has actually devalued the deterrent effect of American military capability and it seems to me that creates an unstable situation, because if he were act it would surprise everybody,’ he said. 

‘I think the other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.’

This conclusion should hardly surprise anyone. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report states the same thing, although the committee unsurprisingly left that as an implication than an explicit condemnation.  The disaster in Benghazi didn’t start on September 11, 2012, or even December 2011 when State first waived security requirements for our consulate in the city. It began when Obama led NATO into decapitating the Qaddafi regime without any thought or provision for what would happen afterward, and then blithely ignored the reality on the ground as the rest of the Western nations packed up and left Benghazi.

In my column today for The Fiscal Times, I point out that the conclusion of ultimate responsibility is painfully obvious, as is the real reason for the debacle in Libya and North Africa:

One does not need a name at the top of this report to know where responsibility rests for this massive failure. Hillary Clinton ran State, Leon Panetta ran Defense, and David Petraeus ran the CIA. But the distributed nature of the failure indicts the Obama administration and Barack Obama himself, too. The White House is responsible for interagency coordination, for one thing, especially when it comes to national security and diplomatic enterprises.

However, Obama’s responsibility extends farther and more specifically, too. The reason that eastern Libya had transformed into a terrorist haven in the first place was because of the Obama-led NATO intervention that deposed Moammar Qaddafi without any effort to fill the security vacuum his abrupt departure created.

Four months before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Daniel Larison warned  that the vacuum left by that 30,000-foot intervention not only meant trouble for the West in eastern Libya, but throughout North Africa as al Qaeda and its affiliates entrenched themselves. Sure enough, al Qaeda infused itself into a Tuareg rebellion and almost topped Mali, an effort which France belatedly stamped out with a boots-on-the-ground intervention – with those boots transported in part by the US Air Force.  At the time, theFinancial Times called Mali “among the most embarrassing boomerangs” of American policy, specifically noting “the blowback in the Sahel from the overthrow of Colonel Moammar Gaddafi in Libya.”

The policies and actions of the Obama administration in Libya left behind a failed state, and the incompetent handling of security and readiness afterward left four Americans to die needlessly. The buck stops at the top for this mess.

The somewhat more sympathetic Amy Davidson reached the same conclusion from the report at The New Yorker:

The talking-points controversy was always strangely misdirected—in part because, as this report makes clear, there is a lot that was substantively wrong with the way things were managed in Benghazi. That is true particularly if the subject of discussion is Hillary Clinton. She does not come out well in this report, in any part, although the Republican minority is more florid in its criticisms. The State Department made mistakes when she was its leader. One of the findings is that nothing changed even when “tripwires” meant to prompt an increase in security or suspension in operations had been crossed, and people in the Department knew it.

Why not? She doesn’t really have an answer; in the past, she has deflected questions by pointing out that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in Benghazi, was someone she knew well and cared about; there is no doubt that he was. Despite her performance at a hearing last year, when she wondered why exactly what happened really mattered, callous indifference is not the answer here. (That won’t stop the clip of her testimony from playing in political ads if she runs for President.) But her reluctance to change course may have been influenced by her heavy investment in the decision to take military action in Libya; the former defense secretary Robert Gates writes in his new memoir that hers was the voice that swayed the balance. (Joe Biden was on the other side.) Libya was one of the things she had managed in her stint as Secretary of State, for which she had been so praised. Also, again, Libya was supposed to be something we were done with; now it will be a question Hillary Clinton has to contend with in 2016, and, in fairness, rightly so.

This is something Obama has to answer for, too. He made the decision to intervene militarily in Libya without invoking the War Powers Act—and that, and not some phantom version of the talking points, is the purloined letter in this case. …

By saying that he didn’t have to get Congress’s permission because whatever we were doing didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities,” he was willing it to always be so. There was no challenge then, but there also wasn’t the kind of consent that might have put some check on the most partisan extremes in the fight about Benghazi now. Obama and his advisers had decided beforehand that this was limited, and wouldn’t go wrong; and then it did.

And to this day, they still won’t acknowledge that failure. That’s why four Americans died in Benghazi — because the Obama administration wasn’t willing to admit that Obama’s grand scheme to intervene in Libya had turned it into a disastrous failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda, even when the CIA and DoD were warning them of it, which is noted fully in the SSCI report. It’s hubris stacked on incompetence, and Strachan is hardly the only one to have noticed this combination.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Is anyone really surprised by this???…

PatriotRider on January 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM

We are so screwed.

esr1951 on January 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM

You think this guy has a delusional and incompetent foreign and defense policy? You ought to see what a screw-up he is domestically.

pat on January 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Lead from behind? Smart Power? Reset?

Those aren’t strategies?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

myiq2xu on January 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Clearly, the guy’s a racist …

/Leftard

ShainS on January 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Fundamentally transformed yo.

You feelin’ me?

Obama just making way for his boys the Muslim Bro-hood in the mid east.

You know what I’m sayin’?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Watch Obama send back the Resolute desk, since he doesn’t have a bust of Churchill anymore.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Watch Obama send back the Resolute desk, since he doesn’t have a bust of Churchill anymore.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

British defense analyst blasts Obama military and foreign policies as “clueless”

Thanks for the heads up, but we already had figured that out.

BacaDog on January 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Sir Hew Strachan is one of the leading experts and historians of war of our time. This is damning.

A.S.R. on January 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM

British defense analyst blasts Obama military and foreign policies as “clueless”

Oh man! Wait until Obama reads this. Nobody will be madder.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM

They hated “Cowboy Bush”. They WANTED Obama. The Brits love him. The Canadians drool over him.
Okay. You got what you wanted, now STHU.

vityas on January 16, 2014 at 12:10 PM

He’s just trying to organize the world community, you know, just like he did back in Chicago.

JimK on January 16, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Once you accept that Obama will do whatever necessary to support the extreme Islamic jihadists then his foreign policy (and energy policies for that matter) makes complete sense. And that’s the only way it makes any sense.

tommyboy on January 16, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Halp Us, Jon Cary, We R Stuk In Irak!

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

who’s the top general today?

DanMan on January 16, 2014 at 12:12 PM

don’t attack the messiah you big ol’ meanies
-lsm

cmsinaz on January 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Beyond clueless…

OmahaConservative on January 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am…

Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM

And to this day, they still won’t acknowledge that failure.

and with the lefist history books, they won’t be pinned for it either

cmsinaz on January 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM

President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.

That he’s a clueless hack, we knew.

To be compared to GWB, though, must really burn.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:15 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Thanks, Murph. Thanks a lot.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 12:15 PM

BUT HE GOT BIN LADEN!!!

originalpechanga on January 16, 2014 at 12:16 PM

This may be the most brilliant and successful sabotage in the history of the world.

CrazyGene on January 16, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Hey Strachan! Don’t expect to get a “selfie” with Obama the next time he’s over there. Also, the NSA may hack into your bank account and put you in the poor house.

Deano1952 on January 16, 2014 at 12:17 PM

What would he rest his feet on?
Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Oh man! Wait until Obama reads this. Nobody will be madder.
Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM

He’s probably got his pants down rubbing his nekkid butt on the desk as we type….

dentarthurdent on January 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I am sure Obama will be using his pen and his phone against Sir Hew Strachan.

redguy on January 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM

but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

On the contrary, my dear sir. His goal is to shrink the United States’ influence in the world, to ingender decline, and to end the “imperialist” injustices that he believes our presence brings.

NickelAndDime on January 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM

the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11. “If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this.

Syria
Snowden
obama’care’

The 3 which brung Pajama-obama to size.

Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

Yes, he does, two things:

1. Bring the US to size

2. Help his muzzie bros.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:19 PM

LSM to report on this in 3, 2,….

tommer74 on January 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM

What else would you expect from an incompetent anti-American president?

rbj on January 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM

There’s no one to the Left of you, Skippy.

kingsjester on January 16, 2014 at 12:20 PM

I am sure Obama will be using his pen and his phone against Sir Hew Strachan.

redguy on January 16, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Well, if he needs assistance, I have a few suggestions as to what Obama can do with that pen and phone.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 12:21 PM

SCOAMF Power!!!!!!11111!!!!elebinty

Obama does not ans has never created. He has only destroyed. It is all he knows. Obama is the proverbial hammer. Community agitating to extort money is what he is and always will be.

jukin3 on January 16, 2014 at 12:21 PM

‘I think the other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.’

Wrong – this fits obama’s aims perfectly:

Libya
Iran
Iraq
Egypt
Syria
the PLO
Lebanon
anti-Israel
Afghanistan
Pakistan
China
Russia
anti-USA
Saudi
Turkey

All go the way he wanted to. His foreign policy is an utter failure. Hillary enabled him all the way.

However, it’s a total success, from his perspective.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Exactly.

kingsjester on January 16, 2014 at 12:22 PM

That picture is perfect…as if Lenin and Mussolini had sex and produced Pajama-narcissist-obama.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Depends on which side Obama is really on….

albill on January 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM

It’s by design, folks.

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM

. . . “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”

Obama’s legacy. Abroad, and here. Now that’s what I call “progressive.”

RobertMN on January 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM

BUT HE GOT BIN LADEN!!!

originalpechanga on January 16, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Provide proof.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM

This is what happens when Obama messes with the Maldives.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Sir Hew Strachan is one of the leading experts and historians of war old fossil racists of our time. This is damning stupid.
A.S.R. on January 16, 2014 at 12:09 PM

FIFY, no thanks necessary YOU RACIST!
-sincerely, libs/proggies

Marcola on January 16, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Clueless. Feckless. Naive. Incompetent.

Just a few words that describe Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda and vision.

Britain has the history of Baldwin and Chamberlain to highlight the effects of a clueless, feckless, naive, and incompetent foreign policy vision. We have our own examples, but when our leader only wants to see the world as he wants it to be as opposed to they way it is, all decisions are made on a fundamentally flawed premise.

Today’s left has far more in common with our enemies, particularly in their shared hatred of traditional American values and strengths. But while they share hatred of the US, our enemies see today’s left as little more than useful idiots.

Athos on January 16, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Obama has a Pen and a Phone….he’ll take care of this.

ToddPA on January 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Provide proof.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Here’s your Proof!

Proof

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM

…he can golf and give campaign speeches…is there a problem?

KOOLAID2 on January 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am…

Bandit13 on January 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Perfect!

Tsar of Earth on January 16, 2014 at 12:30 PM

It began when Obama led NATO into decapitating the Qaddafi regime

…what was behind it, not reported, Qaddafi had threatened, with a few other lands, to drop the US dollar in their oil commerce…

without any thought or provision for what would happen afterward, and then blithely ignored the reality on the ground as the rest of the Western nations packed up and left Benghazi.

obama, Hillary, McCain, Rice and Powers are all to blame, but obama on top of the chain, as noted in The Fiscal Times article.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Blame the obama-shit-consuming media. I so hope they suffocate from it. It’s not Beluga caviar, you utter fools. I also hope that your heads get chopped off first. I’ll laugh.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

CRITIC OF FRANCE’S HOLLANDE SAYS IT WITH DUNG

A truck dumped a huge pile of manure outside France’s National Assembly on Thursday in a protest against the French political elite.

The driver of the truck — which was marked with the slogan “Out with Hollande and the whole political class!” — was apprehended by police shortly after releasing his smelly load outside the front gates of the grand Palais Bourbon that hosts the lower house Assembly.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/16/Critic-of-Frances-Hollande-says-it-with-dung

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Man, that sounds kind of racist.

Bitter Clinger on January 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Better get those styrofoam Roman columns out of the warehouse, and give a speech to frenzied 20-something girls, O.

VastRightWingConspirator on January 16, 2014 at 12:34 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Well, we have footprints over this so far…

Jus’ sayin’

BlaxPac on January 16, 2014 at 12:37 PM

OMG! It almost sounds like we’ve got an Amateur in the White House. A political hack with no executive experience.

TIME FOR ANOTHER PIVOT!

GarandFan on January 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM

It is probably incompetence combined with sinister intentions.

mobydutch on January 16, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Heh, way cool. How would the WH notice the smell?

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:40 PM

obama is truly the most transparent dicktator of the USSA.

Schadenfreude on January 16, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Truer words were never spoken. Add this to the Israeli ministers remarks and Obama is gonna be really ticked off….

sandee on January 16, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Of course, what no one in the American MSM is saying that this isn’t a rebuke from some low level side comment…usually the Brits are a lot more subtle than that when making their displeasure known.

BlaxPac on January 16, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Worst president, worst administration in US History.

hawkdriver on January 16, 2014 at 12:44 PM

It’s nice to hear the plain truth from an ally. Great contrast to the leftist propaganda machine that serves as our “media.”

My contempt of the Mom Jeans Mooch-Dominated No Class No Clue Rat-Eared Dog-Eating Stool Specimen grows ever larger with each day.

MisterElephant on January 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Ha, comedy gold (in a sad sort of way), this coming right after Gate’s book and after what the Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had this to say about our other foreign policy ‘genius’, John Kerry:

“Secretary of State John Kerry – who has come to us determined and is acting out of an incomprehensible obsession and a messianic feeling – cannot teach me a single thing about the conflict with the Palestinians,” Ya’alon said in the interview. “The only thing that can ‘save’ us is for John Kerry to win his Nobel Prize and leave us alone.” “The American plan for security arrangements that was shown to us isn’t worth the paper it was written on,” Yaalon was quoted as saying in private conversations with Israeli officials, accusing Kerry of being naive and implying he is a nuisance.

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The reason that eastern Libya had transformed into a terrorist haven in the first place was because of the Obama-led NATO intervention that deposed Moammar Qaddafi without any effort to fill the security vacuum his abrupt departure created.

Exactly. Does anyone see any analogy here to any of Obama’s domestic policies? Anyone? Bueller?

Leftists are so preoccupied with creating their perfect world that in many ways they see their first order of business as doing everything they can to simply destroy the status quo. Thinking about what comes next can wait. With brilliant individuals like themselves in charge, what takes its place will just have to be superior, won’t it?

SacredFire on January 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Gates’ book that is…

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Obama’s foreign policy goals and his legacy

From Falluja to Maghreb, a new, diffuse al Qaeda

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-security-alqaeda-idUSBREA0F18R20140116

Two weeks ago, fighters from al Qaeda affiliate the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took over much of the central Iraqi city of Falluja, reversing their defeat at the hands of U.S. forces and local tribal allies almost a decade ago.

Western officials fear associated groups will carve out havens in Libya, Syria, West Africa and perhaps Afghanistan once NATO troops withdraw.

But the new generation is very different to the tight-knit group that planned the September 11, 2001 attacks, security experts and officials say.

Groups such as ISIL, Somalia’s al Shabaab or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have primarily local aims and are much less concerned with the Western “far enemy”.

In a video posted on YouTube on December 17 which Western intelligence agencies have been studying, a man in a balaclava snaps rounds into a Glock handgun magazine and, in a pronounced English Midlands accent, calls on British Muslims to join him in Syria, “the land of Jihad”.

But the unidentified man does not mention attacking the West once. Instead, his ire is directed at the forces of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and the western-backed Free Syrian Army.

Heightened strains over the Syria war between Shi’ite Muslim Iran and Sunni power Saudi Arabia, who back opposite sides in the conflict, are contributing to sectarian tensions around the region and encouraging Gulf Arab sympathizers to increase funding of aggressively Sunni al Qaeda affiliates.

But there is little sign of common purpose.

“There are probably more people fighting now under the al Qaeda banner than ever before,” says Richard Barrett, head of the United Nations al Qaeda and Taliban monitoring team until last year and now at the Soufan Group consultancy. “But that doesn’t mean they are necessarily fighting for the same thing or even on the same side.”

Even as it raised its flag in Falluja this month, ISIL was being evicted from its headquarters in Syria’s second city of Aleppo by Islamist groups including the al-Nusra Front, a rival al Qaeda affiliate.

Letters captured from bin Laden’s compound in 2011 show him struggling to control al Qaeda’s affiliates and worrying that al Qaeda in Iraq – now ISIL – was killing too many civilians and alienating Muslim opinion.

His successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, opened al Qaeda further to include groups such as al Shabaab and now faces similar problems. In a letter last year, he called for ISIL to leave Syria to al-Nusra, a request it ignored.

“Most of those now claiming to be al Qaeda would never have even been allowed into the (pre-September 11) movement,” said Nelly Lahoud, a senior researcher at the US Military Academy Combating Terrorism Centre who examined bin Laden’s documents.

“EMERGING AND MULTIPLYING”

Still, Western spy chiefs have worries. Officials say hundreds of British and other European Muslims – as well as a smaller number of Americans – are fighting in Syria alone and will have to be monitored on their return.

“We are having to deal with al Qaeda emerging and multiplying in a whole new range of countries,” John Sawers, head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), told a parliamentary panel in November. “There is no doubt at all that the threat is rising.”

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:56 PM

CRITIC OF FRANCE’S HOLLANDE SAYS IT WITH DUNG

A truck dumped a huge pile of manure outside France’s National Assembly on Thursday in a protest against the French political elite.

The driver of the truck — which was marked with the slogan “Out with Hollande and the whole political class!” — was apprehended by police shortly after releasing his smelly load outside the front gates of the grand Palais Bourbon that hosts the lower house Assembly.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/16/Critic-of-Frances-Hollande-says-it-with-dung

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:32 PM

A rare example of French common sense, that truckster I mean :)

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Good lord.
I hope I don’t see Red Army troops marching down my street before this thug leaves office.

freedomfirst on January 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM

and then hotair will run out of material to bash the President on…that’s what you’re really afraid of, right?

nonpartisan on November 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Chris of Rights on January 16, 2014 at 1:09 PM

But, but “HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT“!!!!

2016 will be a Historic Moment for Women!!

We have been informed by the Dems that Hillary was peerless in her achievements as Secretary of State. She has been raised to demi-god status.

Hillary’s partnership with Obama in implementing his smart diplomacy has paid so many dividends! Let’s cite them:

And still more:

Pax Obama!. All hail our recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace

in_awe on January 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

That is patently false. Obysmal knows exactly what he wants to do in the world. Everything* he has done (or not done)is for the long term benefit of the Islamists. And he is succeeding quite well.

His record is so startingly pro Islamist it kind of makes you think he is one of them.

*For brainfree, verbaldouche, and the rest: Sure, he killed bin Laden (maybe, but he has hidden any proof of that) but bin Laden was not very active in the guts of the movement at the time of his “death”. And yes, I know he has droned a few high profile Islamist leaders (along with countless innocents and children). But he knows this gives him cover and costs the Islamists nothing since they welcome death and have an endless supply of “leaders”.

NOMOBO on January 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM

A rare example of French common sense, that truckster I mean :)

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM

You are from France as I recall?

hawkdriver on January 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Whether or not Obama is clueless depends on your assumption as to who his decisions are intended to benefit. If one assumes his decisions are intended to benefit America, then he is clueless. But if his decisions are intended to benefit our enemies?????? Bingo.

CTimbo on January 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I’m not going to buy the Gates book, but this is the kind of commentary that professional advisors are supposed to give at the time it might be most effective.

Gates is a best-selling-johnny-come-lately and is typical of the pygmy leadership that this adminsistration has had (if that’s not too racist).

virgo on January 16, 2014 at 1:37 PM

A rare example of French common sense, that truckster I mean :)

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM

You are from France as I recall?

hawkdriver on January 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Which is why I know :)…

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Problem is the American electorate. We re-elected him after failure after failure, both domestic and international.

MarkNY on January 16, 2014 at 1:46 PM

MarkNY on January 16, 2014 at 1:46 PM

It’s the American Dream Job: The more you screw up, the more successful you are.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM

President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush,

Tell us something we don’t know.

Patriot Vet on January 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM

This is beyond the Peter Principle, or Affirmative Action for that matter, something else is at work here.

steveracer on January 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Never before in the history of the Republic there has been such an utterly incompetent foolish President, not even close… The man knows nothing about anything of importance to govern… A welfare queens agitator from Chicago who is not fit mentally to run a lemonade stand let alone be the President of the most powerful nation in history… The man is an insult to every American with an IQ over 85 and who is not an absolute left wing lunatic… All what he can do is to read a speech from a teleprompter full of empty buzz words and straw men, attacks Republicans in the most partisan way ever recorded in the history of the Republic, gets adored by the parasites and the dumb, and then goes on to play golf or vacation…

mnjg on January 16, 2014 at 2:38 PM

This is beyond the Peter Principle, or Affirmative Action for that matter, something else is at work here.

steveracer on January 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM

We shall call it the Obama principle… What is the Obama principle? It is how the absolutely least qualified to hold even the most mediocre position can through the power of propaganda and stupidity of voters be elected to the most most powerful position on the planet…. The Obama principle cannot be applied in the business world but only in politics because it requires huge media propaganda and extreme stupidity on the party of majority of voters…

mnjg on January 16, 2014 at 2:44 PM

I hope I don’t see Red Army troops marching down my street before this thug leaves office.

freedomfirst on January 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM

No worries – they won’t be Red Army – they’ll be AQ and Taliban sharia enforcement troops.

dentarthurdent on January 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM

British defense analyst blasts Obama military and foreign policies as “clueless”

“Ding, Ding, Ding…winner, winner, chicken dinner. Tell the ‘Limey’ what he’s won, Bob!”

easyt65 on January 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Sir Hew Strachan doesn’t think highly of George Bush’s foreign policies and war strategies, but as he says, at least Bush had strategies. Barack Obama … not so much:

Hew is wrong. Barky has a strategy – destruction of America and the West. Pretty simple. He’s already successfully killed America (with assists from the SCOTASS and the GOP House douchebags) and has gone a long way to undermining the whole West’s position in the world.

ANyone with even half a brain knew that this was what Barky wanted to do from the very beginning. It wasn’t tough to figure out. Barky hates everything about the West and looked to exact revenge on us for having shamed his third world people with our advancements and freedoms and creativity and progress and wealth. Barky sees himself as the avenging angel of the third world … and much of this nation invited him to be exactly that. Suicide by Indonesian was what America voted for in 2008 and that’s exactly what we got.

Nice that it’s only taken 5+ years for the dipsh!ts in Great Britain to note this … and even now this Hew character is still pulling punches for the affirmative action retard.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 16, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I think when Strachan says “Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world…” he means an overall strategy that informs his management of emerging events. It doesn’t help matters that Obama is notoriously ignorant of history. He didn’t like studying history, so he learned nothing from it. Unfortunately, a firm grasp of world history is a prerequisite to effectively leading the most powerful nation on earth. He has literally no understanding of the consequences of his actions on the world stage, and relies on the same idiotic leftist/progressive template he attempts to impress on all of reality to predict them. Since that template bears very little relationship to reality (the map doesn’t even approximate the territory) the consequences of his actions rarely conform to his expectations. Throw in a double helping of domestic political agendas and ego-gratifying focus on promoting himself and it’s no wonder the result is incoherence.

In Libya, Ghaddafi represented a “bad” despot to Obama, as he was collaborating with the US and keeping a lid on Obama’s Islamist community organizer fellow-travelers. Obviously, unseating an ally who had cooperated with the evil Bush would necessarily improve the situation, not to mention the opportunity for Obama to display his brilliant foreign policy chops and show the neo-cons how it is done. Sheer idiocy, based on preposterous leftist/progressive ideology, crass politicking, and egomania. The consequences were predictable, and many did predict them. But both the predictions and the consequences were forcibly ignored as Obama and his crew attempted to impose their political narrative on a reality it simply didn’t fit. The result in Benghazi was four dead Americans and untold damage to our stature on the world stage.

Yes, Obama has some notion of what his neo-socialist paradise of a world would be. And yes, he and his ilk have set about the fundamental transformation of America and the world for that matter into that leftist wet-dream. But this is a crew so abysmally incompetent that they can f**k up a wet dream. And they are.

It’s going to be a nasty mess to clean up.

novaculus on January 16, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Let’s be clear about what happened here and why it’s important:

A US Ambassador was killed by groups supported by factions within the Libyan government and funded with weapons and money supplied by NATO. That is an Act of War by the Libyan government against the US. Those groups and their leaders are still at large and living openly in Libya with the support of factions in the Libyan government. That is an Act of War by the Libyan government against the US. Those groups are being supported by other nations. That is an Act of War by those nations against the US.

The Obama administration has done nothing about this and continues to play it down. The US congress goes along with this by referring to it as a terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans instead of an Act of War that killed a US Ambassador.

Every country in the world now knows that they can not only work against American interests but can openly attack the US and nothing will be done. This is why Iran is openly using it’s terrorist armies to pursue it’s interests in the Middle East. This is why China is using it’s military to threaten other nations in Asia. This is why Russia is openly installing an anti-western regime in Ukraine.

kcewa on January 16, 2014 at 3:37 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner?

Midas on January 16, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Is anyone really surprised by this???…

Not in the least.

sadatoni on January 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Long live Great Britain. In 1940 and early 1941 during the Battle of Britain they stood alone against Hitler.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 6:40 PM

What would he rest his feet on?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 12:06 PM

A joke that I made.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Exactly. Does anyone see any analogy here to any of Obama’s domestic policies? Anyone? Bueller?

Leftists are so preoccupied with creating their perfect world that in many ways they see their first order of business as doing everything they can to simply destroy the status quo. Thinking about what comes next can wait. With brilliant individuals like themselves in charge, what takes its place will just have to be superior, won’t it?

SacredFire on January 16, 2014 at 12:51 PM

That’s Alinsky. It’s not about the result, or what’s next, it’s solely about the revolution.

PXCharon on January 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Long live Great Britain. In 1940 and early 1941 during the Battle of Britain they stood alone against Hitler.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 6:40 PM

That was then…now your average Brit is a more rabid leftist than the worst ones over here…

jimver on January 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Self-deluded leftists love the paradoxical.
They love the irony and the counter-logic. It’s so whimsical.

Orwell nailed it with his doublespeak.

freedomfirst on January 16, 2014 at 8:21 PM

The simple fact is that Barack Obama is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is or as he advertised himself.

By his own admission in his autobiographies, he was a lackluster student at Occidental College. So how did he get into Columbia where, then as now, third-year transfers need even more stellar transcripts than first-year applicants? And why is there only a single professor who even claims to remember him there?

We don’t know because his college records are sealed as if a juvenile record – tighter than the court-ordered seals on the divorce records of his political opponents. We don’t know how he got into Harvard Law, either. We only know that after being elected of Law Review on the 53rd ballot as a compromise candidate, he never produced a single signed scholarly article then or while spending 14 years as a “constitutional law lecturer” at Chicago.

We do know his empty record as an Illnois State Senator was puffed up by Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. by adding Obama’s name to bills he never worked on, to the chagrin of those who did – who were told by Jones he was “making a US Senator” so shut up.

Obama is glib, and skilled in “debates” where he can filibuster questions to avoid giving answers in short time limits, and avoids any serious interviews as if they were the plague. But he lacks any notable accomplishment or achievement, and there is simply no evidence he is really intelligent at all.

Adjoran on January 16, 2014 at 11:24 PM

What did he expect from someone with little more than “community organizer” on his resume before he became President.

Dear Leader is not only way over his head, he doesn’t really give a sh!t and is at best ambivalent towards what were once some of our best and most reliable allies as, such as Great Britain and the newly freed nations formerly behind the Iron Curtain.

Comrade O is a total incompetent with totalitarian authoritarian instincts and desires who believes he is a morally superior socialist genius.

farsighted on January 17, 2014 at 6:04 AM

But he’s a Nobel prize winner. How can this be?

diogenes on January 17, 2014 at 6:20 AM

Killary cared deeply for Vince Foster, too. Maybe one of her slogans could be, I got Quaddfi and AQ is on the run. Oh, wait, that’s kinda sorta been used already.

Kissmygrits on January 17, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on January 17, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2