Obama’s Wars Aren’t Over

On the campaign trail of a war-weary nation, Obama is running as the man who successfully concluded three wars. This assertion, like so many others, only works if you close your eyes, stick your head deep in the sand and count to a few million.

Wars, unlike elections, do not begin and end on schedule. They begin and end when the enemy says they do. While Obama asserts that three wars are over, Al Qaeda has a different point of view on the matter. And as long as it remains able to carry on its war, then the war isn’t over.

Obama’s boasts of quickly and cleanly wrapping up the Libyan War with no loss of American lives ended on September 11, 2012, when four Americans were murdered by the Islamic militias that he had allowed to take over in Benghazi. The threat of the militias was well known, but disregarded, because it interfered with the image of a quick and successful war.

In his own mind, Obama was still running against Bush, and Libya was a demonstration that, unlike Bush, he could pull off regime change without offending Muslims or alienating the international community.  But like Iraq, the Libyan War did not end with any of Obama’s Mission Accomplished speeches. With no serious plans made for what would happen after the fall of Gaddafi, the real power ended up not in the hands of the government that he expected to take over, but in the hands of the jihadists who had done most of the real fighting.

The Libyan War is not over. The Benghazi consulate attack is a down payment on a conflict that now appears likely to top the Iraq War. The fall of Gaddafi has already led to an Al Qaeda takeover of half of Mali. France is pushing to lead an intervention in Mali and there has been some discussion of American trainers coming back to help the Mali government.

If the Islamists not only retain their hold on Benghazi, but succeed in taking Tripoli, then Libya along with Mali will become a new Afghanistan, except with oil revenues and a favorable location for launching attacks on Mediterranean shipping and on neighboring Europe. And at that point the US will be forced to refight a Libyan War that will look less like Yugoslavia and more like Afghanistan.

And what of Afghanistan, the one remaining conflict that Obama promises us will end on 2014? Like most of Obama’s promises, not only can’t you take it to the bank, but if you write it as a check it will bounce higher than his unemployment numbers.

Obama isn’t really ending the Afghanistan War; he’s ending his part of the war. Obama will have all the troops from his failed Afghanistan surge home by 2014 while leaving behind an estimated 25,000 troops there to try and protect a corrupt Afghan government that is in no shape to hold off the Taliban.

If that seems like a lot, it’s more than the number of troops that Bush had in Afghanistan in 2006. When Obama says that he will end the war and bring all the troops home in 2014, what he really means is that he will bring home the extra troops that he sent there with while keeping all the troops that Bush had there.

Despite what Obama has said in debates and on the campaign trail, the Taliban are not beaten and the Afghans are not ready to take over. The only reason that the Taliban haven’t taken Kabul is because of the ISAF forces. We can’t pull out without handing a victory to the Taliban, and after Obama’s attempts at winning over the “moderate” Taliban failed, he has no choice but to stay in, while lying about it.

There is no actual timetable for ending the War in Afghanistan because there is no plan for defeating the Taliban. Without either defeating or co-opting the Taliban, the only remaining option is a complete unilateral withdrawal followed by the Taliban taking over.

Finally there’s Iraq. Obama built his political career on attacks on the Iraq War. And unlike Afghanistan and Libya, he did eventually withdraw from Iraq. But just because the United States withdrew from Iraq, did not mean that Iraq withdrew from the United States.

Obama falsely claimed that his Iraq to Afghanistan pivot was motivated by a need to focus on battling Al Qaeda. In truth, Al Qaeda had a much larger presence in Iraq than it did in Afghanistan and its Iraqi franchise has continued carrying out large scale suicide bombings and has even found ways to continue murdering Americans after Obama’s botched withdrawal.

A core group of the Benghazi consulate attackers were from Al Qaeda in Iraq, according to reports, and AQI bomb makers prepared explosives for a massive attack on the American embassy in Jordan.

The ghosts of Baghdad caught up to Obama in Benghazi and that won’t be the last attack on Americans carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq. Nor are we through with Iraq as a country. While nothing that happens there makes the news anymore, Iraq has joined the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis of Shiite terror. And Iraq’s recent purchase of Russian aircraft will give it the freedom to attack American manufactured aircraft.

If Obama attempts to intervene in Syria, the result is likely to be a second or third Iraq War. But even if he doesn’t, the growing tensions between Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shiite federal government may drag us in anyway. For now, Obama has backed the Shiite federalists in their dispute with the Kurds, but as Maliki moves into the Russian orbit, we will have a choice between opposing Iran’s Iraqi clients in the coming Iraqi civil war or abandoning our Sunni and Kurdish allies to a Shiite slaughter.

Obama will have the option of staying out of the Iraqi civil war, but not of pretending that everything was wrapped up neatly with a pink ribbon when he pulled out.

Whatever one’s opinion of these three wars may be, Obama’s claims that these wars are over is insultingly dishonest. Wars only end when an enemy is defeated or no longer has the incentive to fight. Neither of those conditions obtains in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. Not only have our enemies not been defeated, but they have been given more power and scope for planning the next wave of atrocities.

September 11, 2012, was a wake up call. If we don’t pay attention to it, there will be worse things waiting for us than burning embassies.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Whatever one’s opinion of these three wars may be, Obama’s claims that these wars are over is insultingly dishonest."

    This always happens. Democrats blame the past and future Republican presidents for all war. Period.

    • tagalog

      Whatever else is true, a war is over when the fighting troops are no longer being killed in military and military-style attacks. The U.S. has defined the armed forces mission for many decades as "to close with the enemy and destroy him." When that's done, we bring the troops home and bring in the diplomats.

      If we're going to announce that we're going to get out in 2014, what reason is there for not getting the troops out now so that they don't continue getting attacked and killed by Islamic mad dogs?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The U.S. has defined the armed forces mission for many decades as "to close with the enemy and destroy him." When that's done, we bring the troops home and bring in the diplomats."

        We need complete surrender from all factions. When fighting a sovereign(s), that means following the examples of WWII. In Islamic nations, we have no choice but to impose Japanese-style constitutions for the exact same reasons we were forced to do this in 1945. Lesson generally not learned…again. It is actually even more important to do it today than it was in Japan then. Islamic colonialism / Islamic supremacy is far more dangerous and resilient than Shinto ever was.

        Those are the facts that matter most.

  • Mary Sue

    Well, this figures. Proof positive of the absolute craven n00bishness of this President and this administration.

    for those not familiar:

    n00b = similar to a newb (in a game). Plays a "game" (or completes a task) like a newb, though they've got enough experience to know better.

  • Coptic John

    In every debate between the prevaricator and the conservative … trust Romney and abash Obama

    • tagalog

      What if Romney and Obama aren't the prevaricator and the conservative? Do we still support Romney and abash (sic) Obama?

  • pierce

    Coptic John, there is a huge difference between a prevaricator and an out an out liar. President Obama is an out an out liar. He no longer can be trusted. If he is reelected, well then the stupid people of this country deserve what they will get. I for one trust Mitt Romney, and I have already voted.

    • Coptic John

      You're right Pierce … he's an out an out liar, thanks for correction

    • Susan Tenofsky

      Who wants a President that cannot be trusted; and it isn't the first time he holds his mysterious socialist background. He is tied to Acorn and many other groups that would horrify Americans if the were aware.
      I suggest you read "Radical-in-Chief" although it is very lengthy and in-depth..about following Obama's background.

      • Mary Sue

        the people who trust him have drank his purple drank koolaid. Their reality is not reality. It's like it was laced with LSD or something. Some of them are such single-issue voters it's unreal.

    • tagalog

      What's the difference?

    • johnnywoods

      Some of us knew he could not be trusted from the beginng, pierce. I realized he was a "commie "before the election in `08. I think he is also a closet mooslim also which allows him to lie to "infidels" of which I proudly profess to be.

  • devdeep

    Coptic John is absolutely right

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

    Obama only considers a war over when he surrenders and withdraws.
    The problem is that the enemy is still alive and well, and bolder than ever. His libya tactic of giving safe haven and oil revenue to al qaida isn't working out so well for us either.

    Obama won't be happy until we're just another failed marxist state under the heal of sharia.

  • LindaRivera

    More taqiyya from our Muslim president. We urgently need a PATRIOTIC NON-MUSLIM PRESIDENT!

    Obama Admits He Is A Muslim http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY

    Obama insulting the Bible – YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYAf9fWxu1U

    As a devout Muslim, Obama's biggest concern is NOT to protect non-Muslims who are in great danger, his biggest concern is to ensure that Muslims are not offended:
    http://www.barenakedislam.com: Barack Hussein Obama told the UN General Assembly today: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    I consider that statement a death threat to me and all anti-Islam bloggers, authors, and activists by the President of the United States. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/09/25/barack-h

    As a devout Muslim, Obama, with Hillary's help, has placed Muslim Brotherhood operatives in places of enormous power in our government. The stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is the DESTRUCTION of civilization and global Islamic conquest.

  • Schlomotion

    The war will not be "over" until Mr. Greenfield can safely blog his Radical Zionism from a Starbucks in Afghanistan.

    • reader

      I take it that you have already conceded the election, schlo. Now, be careful. Your muslim bros will punish you for being such a woos.

    • Ghostwriter

      For you,Schlobrain,the war will not be "over" until every last Jew on earth is dead. What do you think of that,creep?

    • Omar

      For you, Flipside, the war will not be "over" until Radical Islamism dominates the world. In Schlomotion/Flipside's world, the war will not be "over" until Sharia becomes the law of the land. Flipside, do us all a favor and keep your ignorance to yourself.

  • mlcblog

    I am grateful for a thorough and fairly simple chronicle of it all.

  • Brian

    Generally when fighting a war , the idea is to win , by identifying who is the enemy and going about destroying the enemy in the most efficient manner. So far , the West has failed to even identify the enemy because of the insanity of political correctness !

    When the military is hamstrung by political correctness , and political goals such as Nov 6 , the result is the present day Afghanistan where Washington has no plan as to winning … only getting out.

    Nation building as in post WW2 Japan or Germany was a success , mostly because the US was dealing with civilized countries. In places like the Middle East and Afghanistan , the US and NATO are dealing with savages driven by radical Islam , where nation building as in Japan and Germany cannot work.

  • johnnywoods

    The U.S. policy of having "no plan as to winning…only getting out" has been ongoing since Korea.

  • Barry Spinello

    Small p progressives want to reform the State from within. Large P Progressives want to "smash the State" vis-a-vie Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc – to install a single unopposed party. Small p progressives are the dupes oflarge P Progressives.
    You need 3 things to "smash the State"
    1. a worthy cause.
    2. A scapegoat.
    3. The military on your side.
    –A worthy cause. Jihad can never defeat the US militarily. Jihadists are dupes of Obama Progressives. He will encourage them to overestimate their power and overplay their hand. They will nuke Israel and a few American cities.
    –Scapegoat. Progressives will blame the right and thus destroy any opposition.
    — The Military will rally to defeat the "bastards" who nuked our cities and thus will become adjunct to the Progressives – to defeat the Jihadists
    Americans will support this because 3 cities have been nuked.
    When it is over (several years)there will be one party in control.

    This will happen sooner if Obama wins. But later if he loses and a new demigod gets elected.

    America wake up.

  • Steve D

    A war by definition occurs between two sides. The only way it can end is in a complete defeat by one side or a sincere agreement by both to stop fighting.

  • Jon_Babtist

    I believe in his heart Obama would identify more with those who attacked the embassy than those who fought to defend it.