Egypt Seems to Have the Plan for Dealing with Isis that Obama Doesn't

By Elizabeth Nelson

Obama loves to make promises he never intends to keep, and ironically it's usually only our allies and enemies that can see through his smoke screens and B.S. 

So, is it any wonder that, although Obama keeps telling his American people he's "building a coalition to confront ISIS," we the people only see the smoke, as we don't know who is even going to be in it, and our allies see that Obama doesn't have a plan, so they are starting to take matters into their own hands and are making plans of their own.  Even Egypt who kicked out the Muslim Brotherhood in their country, the terrorists who we helped fund so there is no love lost there, has a plan to fight ISIS.

Egyptian leaders — unlike our own – seem to “get” the strategic perspective on combating Islamic terrorism and jihadism. As reported by CNS News, “During Secretary of State John Kerry’s weekend visit to Cairo, his Egyptian counterpart pushed for the new international focus on countering terrorism to go beyond Syria and Iraq, arguing that the same ideology espoused by the jihadists there is driving other Islamist extremists, including those in Egypt’s neighboring territories.

A spokesman for President Abdul Fattah el-Sisi said that in talks with Kerry the president had “stressed that any international coalition against terrorism must be a comprehensive alliance that is not limited to confront a certain organization or to curb a single terrorist hotbed but must expand to include all the terrorist hotbeds across the Middle East and Africa.”

Egypt along with another Arab nation, the United Arab Emirates, has engaged in air strikes against Islamist militias in neighboring Libya. We also know the al-Sisi government in Egypt ousted the Muslim Brotherhood government to the chagrin of the Obama administration. And it is Egypt who has taken a hard line stance against the Islamic terrorist group, Hamas. So why aren’t we getting commitments from Egypt and UAE to combat the Islamo-fascist ideology and to first defeat ISIS? Perhaps there is a trust factor?

In a most revealing statement, during a joint press appearance with Kerry, Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri underlined the point, calling for a fight against Islamist terrorists “wherever they may be.” “I support the international efforts to fight terrorism and work on supporting these efforts, and support the necessary measures to put an end to this phenomenon, whether in Iraq, Libya, any part of the Arab world, or in Africa,” he said.

CNS says, “in reply to a question about possible links between ISIS and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, a terrorist group based in the Sinai peninsula, he said the two organizations were linked through a common ideologically and vision, even if they portray themselves differently.” Read more AllenWest

Now that Obama has been painted a Terrorist sympathizer, because he funds terrorists, Egypt understands that the head of our Country, not necessarily Country as a whole, stands besides with the terrorists. How are they supposed to trust us or turn their backs to us? Sadly, this is yet another difference between Bush and Obama, Bush didn't have a problem pulling a Coalition together, or having them follow him.  

Even Putin told Bush that he shouldn't go into Iraq alone, and helped him form the Coalition. He was very clear and concise with his plans and definitive about who the enemy was, what the threat was, and how they could help each other defeat the problem. Can we really see Putin or any of them calling Obama a "friend" as he called Bush a friend?

McConnell: ISIS is a Consequence of Obama’s Foreign Policy

by Elizabeth Nelson

Who can deny McConnell is onto something here, Obama's Foreign Policy is a hot mess, even Bush warned Obama and all of America, in 2007, when everyone wanted him to pull out of Iraq, that if we pulled out before we decimated al-Qaeda the consequences would be dire for not only America but for Iraq.

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States.

• It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda [ISIS].
  
• It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.
   
• It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven [Islamic State the size of Belgium] in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.
  
• It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Obama entered this Presidency with the mindset of a political war, of Americans vs. Muslims and it was Bush's war, not his war to win and he was going to be the hero and stop it.  So he has no one to blame but himself for the vacuum he caused in our pull-out and ISIS jumping in it and growing stronger in its darkness, and the Islamic State he created.

With Obama's "core coalition" rotting out, before the rest of the coalition of 10 is even formed, or can even hits ISIS, "wherever they are." Now there's another wrinkle in Obama's genius political strategy to "degrade and manage" ISIS.  If Obama bombs ISIS in Syria, without permission from Bashar al-Assad, it will be seen, by al-Assad, as "an act of aggression."

Syria’s foreign minister warned the U.S. on Monday not to conduct airstrikes inside Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham group without Damascus’ consent, saying any such attack would be considered an aggression.  I guess this means that al-Assad and Putin, his friend, won't be joining Obama's core of " merry men." So, what do all of Obama's failed foreign policies mean for the future of U.S.A, when we put them all together, do you think he'll figure it out in time to take the war to ISIS in  Syria, as he said he would or just make it worse? 

"Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: [since when?] if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."  

Will Obama find his "foreign policy grove" in Syria and Iraq, with ISIS/Boko Haram; well, I guess that all depends on if you're looking at this as a liberal with Obama-rose-colored glasses or a conservative with clear eyes.  Basically we have a high school football coach in charge of an NFL football team that we already see has a losing record, and what do you think he's going to do, when he's on the field, faced with an aggressive team that doesn't just want to take out or knees but wants to take off our head?

So, we won't be allowed to call this a "War on Terror," because Obama didn't "take action and hunt down terrorist threats, in our Country or anywhere else for that matter." Years later, we still don't have an answer for Benghazi." No, he ended that war, but "Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run." No, they just reinvent themselves as well as Madonna in the 80s. They may have been "on the run", but has now they've reinvented themselves as a meaner, bigger, smarter, technical, madder ISIS and whatever other group they may pop up as next, mr. Obama, because your foreign policies failed us.  

     

Obama's ISIS Core Coalition is Rotting out before it even Begins

By Elizabeth N

Obama announced last week, just days after he announced to the world, and our enemies, that "we don't have a strategy," that his "core coalition," his dream team - as you will - would consist of 10 countries, aiming to gain the Middle Eastern Countries before the next UN security council meeting but already including the US, UK, France and Australia. 

However, now that Obama has given his rather daft "we're sending even more 'non-combat, humanitarian and advisory only boots"[shades of Vietnam, don't shoot back, when shot at. But wait, is anyone keeping track? That makes more than 1,000 boots on the ground.  

Now the UK and France are starting to get squirmy in their resolve and they just don't think "a bomb here and a bomb there" are going to do the trick in "destroying ISIS". "A Pep talk isn't a strategy." Heck, a lot of our Senators feel the same way, but can we really blame them, Obama doesn't enter wars to win them, but knowing his allegiances, do we expect him to; "if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand". He is a self-professed Muslim, as the majority of us understand and he is on their side, after all.  As family, aren't we happy when our family members win, even when we are on the losing end of the game?

British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande, the leaders of Europe's main military powers, told Obama in private meetings that Washington had to do more than simply order air strikes on IS targets in Iraq and needed an overall strategy, European officials said.

"It can’t be just ‘let’s go and bomb a few targets and see what happens’," said one Western defense official familiar with the talks between the allied leaders. France said this week it was ready to engage in all aspects of the fight against IS, including potentially military action. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Friday that London had not yet decided on any involvement in air strikes.

A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "There is a growing sense that this is going to take more than we are doing... but it needs to be a measured, cautious approach." Read more Reuters

Now, Britain is no stranger to terrorists or extremist Islam, but watch and listen to the tone of Prime Minister Cameron, a real leader, as he reacts to the beheading of Foley.  First, I'll mention that he canceled his vacation and returned to work.  I'll also have you notice how he's handling his people defecting from his country, with their passports, and the threat of their returning to make good on their terror threats, because ISIS isn't just a real threat to us but to our allies.

That role will probably be defined by Jerusalem’s ability to provide rapid and precise intelligence support to the US-led military forces charged with making air strikes on Islamic State positions. Israeli defense officials will not publicly confirm any plans to provide aid to the emerging war effort. Over recent months, IDF Military Intelligence has grown by more than a thousand personnel to enable it to track the growing jihadi presence in neighboring Syria.  

So, the message we're getting is, if we aren't willing to "die for the cause," why is anyone else going to send their sons, daughters and husbands to die, especially when it's Obama doing the asking?

You see, Obama and even a few in our Senate - like Rand Paul - have this isolationist view that all of the world's problems are because America has always been the one to step in and solve everyone else's problems, so they've decided to take a stance of speak softly, but drop the big stick and step out of the "fix-it" business. It didn't take us long to see the effect of an absent America.

We watched Syria gases their people, Boko Haram's kidnapping of almost 3,000 girls and their murdering entire villages and then they merge with ISIS - who is now a well funded technical army. Then we watch Hamas bombing Israel at will, Putin is invading and taking whatever he wants and then sending a not so veiled threats of nuclear war, if we mess with him. Iran is thumbing their nose at us. China encroaches upon Japan's airspace, space that used to be common ground. 

So, how is your isolationism foreign policy working for you, Mr. Obama? The world can't say, "it's all America's fault, because we are nowhere to be found, and we have you to thank for that. Now we see what the world would look like without America, the Super Power-less in it