EDWARDS: Islamic fundamentalists benefit from Obama's foreign policy

In Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, goals of fundamental Islam, not American security interests, are being furthered.  Photo: Gadaffi - Mubarek - Assad / Associated Press

HOUSTON, September 6, 2013 – President Obama’s foreign policy decisions in Egypt, Libya and his current desire to start a war in Syria, continue to further the interests of Islamic fundamentalists.

Syria, Libya and Egypt were three of the very few remaining secular governments in the Mideast, prior to US interventions. Due to consequences flowing from Obama’s actions, all three will soon be governed by totalitarian Islamic fundamentalists.


SEE RELATED: Does anyone really believe Assad used chemical weapons in Syria?


Most Muslims consider the Quaran and the accompanying Hadiths the direct word of Allah, striving to follow that direction as closely as possible. The main goal of Islam, as established by these texts, is to establish a “caliphate,” or an Islamic world government based on Sharia law.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a very powerful group in the Mideast, is a constant player in the battles for control in Libya, Egypt and, now, Syria. Interestingly, the Brotherhood, whom President Obama, Sen. John McCain and many others have refererred to as moderate, has as it’s official credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Without any regard for the ruler or government that would follow, Obama has called for, and successfully deposed, leaders of Egypt and Libya, which were two of the most powerful secular forces in the Middle East.

Although Obama has recently said he does not support regime change in Syria, this is a departure from previous calls for Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, to step down.


SEE RELATED: Debate over Syria shows Americans’ growing distrust of US government


President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, and now President Assad of Syria all showed little concern for the welfare of their citizens. President Obama knew this and acted on this knowledge in Egypt and Libya and has advocated for the same in Syria.

Both Libya and Egypt are, it could be argued, by every measure worse off today than they were before intervention. The Syrian situation is almost identical to that of Libya, except the international community is affirmatively against Obama entering the Syrian war.

In Egypt, President Mubarak was the keystone that kept the peace in the Middle East. Egypt is the strongest military power besides Israel in the region, and the fact that Mubarek unwaveringly abided by the Camp David Accords, where his predecessor and the prime minister of Israel agreed to a peace treaty, was more than enough to consider his leadership beneficial for American and Israeli security interests.

However, Obama was extremely vocal during the “Arab Spring” in 2011 in calling for a regime change and for Mubarak to step down paving way for the Muslim Brotherhood, by far the best financed and organized opposition group to Mubarak, to take power. This support was done knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood had planned to break the peace treaty with Israel if they were ever in power.


SEE RELATED: Obama’s red line: Human rights hypocrisy and delusion


When Mubarak did step down, the Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi, as was widely expected, won the special election for President. He subsequently rammed through a Constitution based largely on Sharia law and without any input from the liberal opposition.

This, coupled with the Brotherhood’s relentless crackdown on dissent and religious freedom, resluted in protests that dwarfed those of Mubarak’s oppression.

In August of 2013, a Gallup poll of Egyptians found that a stunning 80% believed they were better off under Mubarak, before Obama’s intervention, than they are now.

In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi did not force his people to live under the oppressive and totalitarian rule of Sharia law. He described his theory on governing, commonly referred to as the “third international theory,” as a mixture of “Islamic socialism, African and Arab nationalism and direct democracy.”

On March 31, 2011, America and a coalition of countries attacked Libya and eventually killed Gaddafi. Libya’s new transition governement asked that America and the other countries stay in limited numbers for two more months to help them get their new governement implemented and to keep the warring Islamist factions at bay.

The United Nations voted not to do so, and all the countries withdrew in late October of 2011.

Over two years later, Libya is an absolute mess with ruthless Islamic groups fighting for power. The Islamic groups have targeted military institutions, foreign bases (like America’s Benghazi consulate in September 2012) and police stations in order to diminish the power of the current governement.

These groups have taken control of almost all of the country’s oil resources. The current governement says they do not have enough money, almost all of which comes from oil exportation, to pay the salaries of governement workers through the end of the year.

Once the governement dissolves the people will be at the mercy of whichever Islamist gang is the most powerful, able to wrest control from the others.

Obama’s war cry in Libya and Egypt was almost the exact same thing as it is now in Syria. We are again told that anything must be better than the current regime.

Therefore, for the third time, Obama wants to replace a secular government with the even more oppressive Sharia law.

The Syrian Free Army, often referred to as the “rebels,” are very similar to the factions fighting for control in Libya. The different groups have all expressed affiliation with either al-queda or the Muslim Brotherhood, yet politicians constantly tell us that the rebels are moderates.

For the Syrian people’s sake, let’s hope that President Obama does not depose Assad. The alternative would be much worse, as the people in Egypt and Libya, and the world, are finding out.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday told a committee in the House of Representatives that Arab countries have offered to finance the entire war against Syria.

Of course many of the Muslim countries will finance Obama’s war! They want to further the cause of Islam: a global caliphate based on Sharia law, and Syria is one of the few remaining powerful secular forces in the Mideast.

The benefit to Islamic fundamentalists is clear, but Obama has yet to communicate what American security interest is at stake and what benefit this war would have for the American people.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from A Time for Choosing
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
James Richard Edwards

James R. Edwards is a medical malpractice defense attorney in Houston, Tx. He obtained a Bachelor’s degree from LSU (Geaux Tigers!) in Psychology and subsequently went on to attend the University of Houston Law Center. James became interested in politics in law school because of the consistent and oppressive disgust and revulsion shown by the staff and Professors for the Constitution and for America in general. He is a tireless advocate for federalism and minimizing the impact the federal government has on all of our lives. 

Contact James Richard Edwards

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus