OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY: INEPTNESS OR TREASON?

I disagree with the opinion that the seemingly abysmal results of the foreign policy of Obama and his administration are caused by ineptness and incoherence.

I conclude that the results are the desired goals of Obama based on two things: 

• (1) the consistency of the results, and 
• (2) the consistency of Obama's appointments and long-time personal friends and alliances. 

In my opinion, if Obama and his administration were merely incompetent, then the results would be mixed.

They are not mixed.

(1) In every instant, the results have aided islamists of the AKP-ilk; that is to say islamists who are disposed to expand the breadth and depth of islamist control and the re-establishment of a caliphate - ("islamist hegemony", to use a term with less baggage) - via creeping sharia and democracy as opposed to violent jihad. I refer to Erdogan's famous utterance that "democracy is a train and you get off at your destination". The destination is the establishment of islamic republics with sharia; the means are non-violent whenever possible.

So - IMO - Obama supports the AKP and the MB and Fatah and the PML(N) and the House of Saud and opposes al Qaeda, because they all see the violence and terror al Qaeda uses as counter-productive.

Hence Obama uses drones to kill al Qaeda and USAF air power to depose Kaddafy while supporting Morsi and Erdogan - and Erdogan's and the House of Saud's desire to topple Assad.

I feel that Obama basically and consistently supports the global aspirations of the House of Saud: 

to finance Salafist mosques and madrassas and thereby the non-violent Salafist colonization - or subjugation - of the world.

(2) All of Obama's long-time personal friends and advisors are anti-Zionists; for example, Ayers and Dohrn have been life-long anti-Zionists and vehement supporters of Code Pink and other organizations that - allied to Erdogan - have been fighting the blockade of Gaza. Obama studied with Edward Said, and was a close friend of Said's primary disciple and one-time Arafat associate Rashid Khalidi. Charles Freeman, Samantha Power and Hillary and Kerry and Hagel have consistently over decades favored pressuring - if not blaming - Israel over pressuring the Arabs. Kerry called Bashar Assad his dear friend. Hagel has routinely blamed the Israel lobby. And Obama just this week released a video address supporting ISNA - a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. This happens the same week Egyptian newspapers are reporting they have proof Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

IS HE REALLY A MEMBER OF THE MB? I don't know but... he might as well be.

I'd agree Obama was incompetent if anyone could point out one instant of an Obama policy which hurt the Muslim Brotherhood or stemmed global islamization. Just one.

Nope. Never happened.

In fact, Obama's very first interview was with the muslim press. And his first major policy speech was in Cairo - and he DEMANDED that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be present at that speech -  (a "reset" of our relations with the muslim world), and Obama got his wish. Of course, Mubarak therefore declined to attend - which was okay with Obama. Obama had no use of Mubarak; Mubarak was in the way.

Was this incompetence? No: Obama favored the Muslim Brotherhood over Mubarak and Obama has favored them over everyone and everything. Kaddafy was a piece of crap, but he was helping us attack the islamists. What did Obama do? Overthrew him.

The results might be bad for the USA and our allies - for the entire Free World, but only if you think America's foreign policy should advance our interests and the interests of our traditional allies and the Free World.

THEY'RE ONLY BUGS IF YOU'RE A PATRIOT, BUT, IF YOU'RE AN ISLAMOPHILIC POSTMODERN LEFTIST, THEN THEY'RE A FEATURE.

Islamists do not share our interests and have no desire to defend or expand the Free World. Hence, they like Obama's foreign policy.

As far as Syria is concerned: Erdogan and the House of Saud want BOTH Assad and al Qaeda defeated and an AKP-like party to take over. Obama and McCain think this is possible if we aid the "moderates" - ("moderate" is doublespeak for AKP-like).

I know there's one thing bothering you about this theory:

Why did the House of Saud stop supporting Morsi?

Because Morsi tried to do too much too fast and destabilized Egypt's already teetering economy - which, if it collapses - threatens the entire region. The House of Saud wants steady global islamization - at a pace that doesn't threaten their wealth and power. An Erdogan-like pace.

Obama has thus far succeeded in aiding the islamists - and attacking the islamo-terrorists whose violence creates a backlash to silently, steadily creeping sharia.

Until we elect a patriot, our only hope is if the internecine muslim war keeps them too occupied to attack us and our allies.

And the hope that Israel can neutralize Iran before it's too late, and the iranians get nukes.

Then we lose.