So Much For Obama’s Peace Prize

Obama’s legacy of global chaos, not peace

Saturday, August 6, 2016 | Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com)

Obama speaking at Baltimore mosque Feb2016With just several months left in office, critics assert that President Barack Obama will go down in history for his failed foreign relations, noting his track record of being more than an agitator than a peacemaker around the world.

“President Barack Obama would say he has improved America’s image abroad, his policies have promoted peace and have made the world safer,” CBN World News’s Gary Lane reports. “But Obama’s critics say his foreign policy has failed, that it has lacked clarity and vision, and sets the stage for worse global conflicts to come.”

No peace in the Middle East

Two nations where Obama’s failed policies stand out are Afghanistan and Iraq — nations that he highlighted in his historic first-term speech at Cairo University as being central to his overall plans to make an overhaul on American foreign policy for the better.

“I have come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” the commander-in-chief proclaimed in June 2009.

Many promises were made by the president just several months after moving into the White House — promises that were not kept.

“The president pledged to fight negative stereotypes of Islam and promised to end America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Lane informed. “He also advocated a nuclear-free Middle East.”

Many considered it ironic that an award for bringing about peace was later bestowed to someone who incited the notorious escalation in violence witnessed throughout the “Arab Spring.”

“Less than nine months into his presidency, the Nobel committee announced Obama would be awarded the peace prize,” CBN News’ expert on global affairs pointed out. “At the time, his critics said he had done nothing to deserve the recognition, but the president had already taken on the role of peacemaker, atoning for what he believed were America’s past sins.”

Dubbed as “the world apology tour” by critics, Obama traveled to numerous countries to condemn the United States for its past efforts aimed at ensuring global security amidst a world riddled with hostile Islamic nations.

“[T]here have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” the president expressed during his tour in a speech given in Strasbourg, France — in hopes that America’s image abroad would improve by bowing out of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But neither strategy worked out for the better … or the way the commander-in-chief intended.
“Obama announced American troops would leave Afghanistan by late 2014, but he later reversed course and said they’d remain until 2017,” Lane added. “And he pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, [but] the president’s critics argued the withdrawal was premature and that it would lead to more terrorism.”

ISIS emerging

About two years after Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq, ISIS became a major Islamic terrorist threat as it stormed through the Ninevah Plain in Iraq, taking control of Mosul and declaring its sovereignty as an Islamic caliphate.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) soon warned that an aggressive plan needed to be implemented to take the militant Muslim down before it got out of hand.

“We now are facing the largest, most powerful, wealthiest terrorist organization in history, and it is going to require some very strong measures to defeat them,” McCain declared.

But Obama did not heed the advice, choosing rather to pursue favor with the Islamic world.
“[ISIS’s] jihadists kidnapped, raped and killed along the way,” Lane explained. “The president responded with limited air strikes and U.S. special forces operations, but no major boots on the ground. Obama had opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and didn’t want American troops to return for a third Iraqi war.”

Former U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff John M. “Jack” Keane, who is a retired four-star general, made it clear that Obama’s policy to deal with the Islamic State was severely flawed and lacking.

“We are in fact losing this war,” Keane warned Congress. “Moreover, I can say with certainty that this strategy will not defeat ISIS.”

Keane’s synopsis of the situation has since proven to be accurate, with numerous nations — including the recent attacks in France, Belgium and the United States — incurring ISIS’s wrath, reportedly as a result of the commander-in-chief’s stand-offish approach.

“Seven years after he pledged to defend Muslims against stereotypes, President Obama remained unwilling to call the Orlando attack an act of Islamic terror,” Lane pointed out.

After the Florida nightclub attack killing 49, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump drew attention to Obama’s non-confrontational and apologetic approach to America’s national defense against terrorism.

“This Orlando attack was just absolutely horrendous and, yet, he still doesn’t even use the word of radical Islamic terror!” Trump told Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly.

Obama was quick to defend his pro-Muslim policies as commander-in-chief, arguing that calling out the violence as being inspired by Islamic beliefs creates problems, rather than solve them.
“There is no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” the outgoing president insisted. “It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy!”

Problems with Syria and Russia

Even though Obama and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made efforts to improve relations with Syria and Russia, little has actually been done.

“When Syria’s Bashar al Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, President Obama drew a red line, threatening to launch air strikes against the Assad government, but he later backed down,” Lane contends.

While serving under Obama’s first term, Clinton reportedly smiled as she pressed a bright red relationship re-set button with Russia’s Minister of foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov.

“We want to re-set our relationship,” the now Democratic presidential nominee declared before chuckling. “Let’s do it together. We will do it together, okay?”

Such togetherness, however, proved to be little more than words several years later.
“Six years after Clinton pressed the re-set button with the Russia, President Vladimir Putin responded with air strikes of his own in Syria, not against Assad, but against anti-regime rebels supported by the United States,” CBN News’ global analyst maintained before turning attention to Obama. “Earlier, Putin challenged the U.S. on Ukraine and annexed Crimea. In response, Obama imposed economic sanctions against Russia but took no military action. Obama’s critics described him as feckless and indecisive.”

Addressing the Arab Spring

Obama’s part in helping the terrorist-led Muslim Brotherhood gain power in Egypt and allowing the Benghazi attack in Libya to claim the lives of American officials were also addressed.

“The so-called Arab Spring turned out to be a brutal and devastating winter — costing thousands of lives and creating millions of refugees,” Lane recounted. “It brought revolution to Egypt — replacing a long-time American ally with the Muslim Brotherhood and oppressive Islamic rule. Christian churches and buildings were set ablaze when a popular uprising forced the Brotherhood from power.”
The Obama administration’s cover-up to put the blame of the Benghazi attack on the makers of a random YouTube video will not likely go away any time soon.

“But mistakes in Libya and the stain of Benghazi may be remembered for years to come,” Lane continued. “The president’s foreign policy team blamed an anti-Muslim video instead of a terrorist attack for the assault on the U.S. compound and the deaths of four Americans.”

Clinton’s apathetic response given during her 11-hour congressional testimony when addressing who was to blame for the mishandling of the Benghazi attack will also likely remain blemishes on Obama’s marred foreign policy record.

“What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked those questioning her during the hearing.
Breaking good Israeli relations

Another low point of Obama’s foreign policy that is predicted to stay with him for decades to come is the diminished partnership between the U.S. and Israel.

“Deep divisions with Israel arose early in the Obama presidency,” Lane recalled. “Some argued that Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s personal relationship with Obama was the worst ever between an Israeli prime minister and an American president.”

Even though Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly told Israel to make concessions to the terrorist-led Palestinians and snubbed Netanyahu during his Washington, D.C., visit, the president has tried to persuade the Jewish state and its allies of America’s unwavering support for Israel.

“There should not be a shred of doubt by now, when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back,” Obama impressed.

Soon afterward, the vow ended up being little more than words.

“However, the president’s words of encouragement were overshadowed by the nuclear agreement with Iran that created the greatest divide between Israel and the United States,” Lane pointed out.
Supporting Iran’s Nukes

Obama’s unprecedented support of Iran to drop sanctions and not stop its nuclear program is also expected to go down in history.

“Iran agreed to limit its number of nuclear centrifuges and reduce its uranium stockpiles,” Lane recounted. “In exchange, the United States agreed to lift economic sanctions imposed on Iran and unfreeze $150 billion in Iranian assets.”

Shunning away harsh critics, Obama said America’s concessions to Iraq and allowing the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program to continue were good for America.

“[It’s] a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” Obama commented. “[The deal’s framework] would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Instead of conceding that the deal put nuclear weapons closer to Iran’s reach, Obama insisted it improved global security.

“Obama believed engagement with Iran would create a safer world,” Lane informed. “His administration promised a transparent agreement, but the public later learned several secret side deals had been made with Iran.”

Even though Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran was forwarded by Congress, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stood with other critics in stark opposition, insisting that it would permit Iran to hasten its ability to create nuclear weapons that could turn against America, its allies and the West.

“It’s going to be dangerous for the United States and dangerous for the world,” Cotton foresaw.
Seeking the security of his own nation from Iran, which has threated to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, Netanyahu tried to plead with the United States and world powers to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran.

“It has been said, ‘better no deal than a bad deal,’” Israel’s prime minister asserted. “Better no deal than a terrible deal!”

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have been very disappointed to see the Obama administration’s continued push to appease the Muslim world — above and beyond seeking strong ties with America’s longstanding ally and only democracy in the Middle East.

Feigning diplomatic victories?

Despite many prevailing arguments that the administration’s handling of foreign affairs aimed at improving American relations with the Muslim world has made the world a more dangerous place, Obama insists that his involvement in the Middle East has worked to improve global relations for all.
“[As] his presidency nears an end, Obama would probably cite the Iran nuclear deal as his greatest foreign policy achievement,” Lane mused. “The Nobel Peace Prize winner would say it promotes peace and lessens the likelihood of nuclear conflict.”

Supporting this sentiment, Obama proclaimed that his negotiations with Islamic leaders will change the course of world events and make the world a better, safer place.

“Our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice,” the president expressed while receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Contradicting the claim Obama made seven years ago that his interaction with Muslim leaders works to improve global security interests, conservatives and other opponents of Obama’s foreign policy maintain that his actions have actually spurred more violence … and will continue to do so.

“However, the president’s critics say his direction has led the nation along a dangerous path,” Lane concluded. “They say his policies have only emboldened America’s enemies and may cause even greater conflicts — long after Barack Hussein Obama leaves the White House.”