The entire Middle East has become embroiled in a far reaching civil war since the Obama/Clinton foreign policy doctrine has been instituted.  The cause and effect was completely predictable but the new mandarins in the US State Department (most of them just graduated from Harvard since most of the old gray haired people were sidelined) have been mystified.
As the US withdrew and what pieces it had left in the game, it bungled (maybe on purpose – difficult to say) the void was filled by exceptionally malevolent actors.
There are no mysteries in violent internal instability. If one side suddenly is losing, that always means the opposing side has received assistance. Sometimes that assistance is in the form of defections. Sometimes it is in the form of betrayals. Most often, a sudden change in fortunes means one side has received major outside military aid or an influx of soldiers that alters the local outcome. 

You don’t have to look farther than the American Revolution to see how that worked. It’s a text book example of what we are seeing throughout the Middle East in terms of shifting balances because of outside aid and intervention.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East should bother us all. Israel, stable, is building them as if there was no tomorrow to increase and scatter their inventory to different locations well beyond Desdemona. Iran, buying them from North Korea, wants more than the two or three  that it has — maybe hundreds. Saudi Arabia likely has four or five, purchased at massive cost from Pakistan and Syria is begging Russia for nukes. Russia is very unlikely to comply with their request. 
President Obama plans to kick off a new war in January 2017, in time for the incoming president to deal with the fall-out (nuclear or otherwise). He said, “Our troops have long shown what can be achieved with shifting objectives and no strategic foresight. If we’ve done it before, we can do it again!” (pre-recorded cheering in the background)

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

16 COMMENTS

  1. I wonder if these liberals in charge of a disastrous foreign policy for the last 6 years will be held accountable by the 'low information voter' when the shit hits the fan.

    When the Middle East completely blows up in a series of mushroom clouds, I wonder if these low info types will maybe wake up.

    Elections matter. They really do.

  3. No, the low information voters won't wake up. Unless you deprive them of their food stamps, Obamaphone, subsidized (free) housing or their welfare payments.

    Yes, elections matter.

  4. Not malevolent – narcissistic and incompetent. Which reminds me of the guy in the White House now. She's wants the power over all other ends, for her own hands. And that's danger.

  5. Calling this piece o' work a 'malevolent actor' would be like calling the devil a 'rascal.'

    Or like calling Michael Moore 'husky.'

    Or like calling Jeffrey Dahmer 'hungry.'

    Malevolent actor, my butt. How about evil, nasty lyin' crooked bitch? And if pressed for a straight answer to your question, most assuredly yes, she is a malevolent actor for starts.

  10. Hillary talks of her "Southern roots" even though she is from Chicago. I wonder if y'all adopted her or something – made her an honorary Kentucky Colonel…

  14. So's Barry.

    Note: no comment on my schtick above? Dahmer 'hungry', get it? Some of my best material, here, LL. The stuff on my "A" list.

  15. Hillary is like a rattlesnake with a "pet me" sign, she's pure as Mexican tap water, as trustworthy as a Palestinian on a motorcycle, as untainted as gas station sushi, and as reliable as a Brian Williams news report. Putting her in charge of the country is like putting husband Bill in charge of White House interns…

  16. The only part of the country that is valid is the fetid hellish inner cities (Baltimore is a great example) because they vote Democrat. The rest of the country is naturally part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Comments are closed.