President Obama, Bill O’Reilly, and Dr. Strangelove Foreign Policy

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama is anything but a pacifist. He continues to conduct unconstitutional and counterproductive drone wars in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. His unconstitutional air campaign in Libya, which helped Islamist rebels overthrow Qaddafi’s government, led directly to the tragedy in Benghazi. Despite his claims that the United States will leave Afghanistan by 2016, the President actually intensified the fighting in Afghanistan during his 2012 “surge.” President Obama seemed desperate to bomb Syria in 2013, but Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative in getting the Assad government to destroy its chemical weapons put the damper on the Obama administration’s warmongering. The unpopularity among the American people of a potential war against Syria combined with scores of other scandals scarring the Obama presidency made the Commander-in-Chief reluctant for once to be militaristic. Despite having no use for the Constitution and feeling that he had the power to attack Syria without Congressional approval, the President gambled by letting Congress do its constitutional duty. This gamble did not pay off as Congress did not vote to take military action against Syria.

President Obama again violated the Constitution by bombing the Islamic State in Iraq without Congressional approval. While neoconservatives, who are even more bellicose than the neo-progressive militarist Obama, constantly blame the President for withdrawing from Iraq, this decision was made by President Bush. President Obama wished to remain in Iraq, but the Iraqi government refused to grant any remaining United States troops immunity from local prosecution, which is standard in Status of Forces agreements. Remaining in Iraq when the Iraqi government clearly wanted the United States gone would have painted the United States as even more of an imperialist occupier and would have practically painted bull’s-eyes on the backs of remaining American troops.

Unbelievably, for traditionalists like Bill O’Reilly and his militaristic neocon fellow travelers, President Obama has not been nearly enough of a warmonger. In a weekly column entitled “Take Us to Your Leader … Please,” the Fox News Channel host accuses President Obama of having been “cowed by the world’s bullies” prior to his speech on September 10 when he announced that he would be violating the Constitution by continuing his bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and by widening this new war into Syria by attacking targets there.

In his speech, President Obama admitted that the Islamic State does not pose a direct threat to the United States. Even the President does not have the gall to claim with a straight face that an insurgent force of approximately 30,000 half a world a way could pose a threat to the world’s mightiest military. Nevertheless, President Obama attempted to justify Iraq War Part III:

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners, including Europeans and some Americans, have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

The need to protect Americans in Iraq makes sense. Especially after what happened in Benghazi nearly two years to the day earlier. However, a surer way to protect American personnel would be to simply evacuate all diplomats, security personnel, and “military advisors” from Iraq.

If the Islamic States does pose a threat in the Middle East, the obvious question is why regional powers cannot handle a 30,000 member insurgency themselves. Turkey has one of the ten strongest militaries in the world. Saudi Arabia also has formidable military capabilities and oil wealth to further increase its offensive capabilities. Despite its pathetic performance to date and its either inability or unwillingness to stand up to Sunni insurgents, Iraq has over 270,000 active troops and a large supply of heavy military vehicles. If Iraqis cannot defend themselves after so much time and American tax dollars have been spent in rebuilding the Iraqi army—which the Bush administration foolishly “de-Ba’athified”—then Iraq may simply never again be a viable nation. Americans can no longer be forced to sacrifice blood and treasure for such a lost cause.

The idea that we need to fight American Jihadists who have joined the Islamic State over there so we do not have to fight them over here is even more dubious than it usually is. The Islamic State is occupied fighting against Iraq, Syria, the Kurds, and rival Syrian rebel groups. Any foreign fighters who attempt to leave the Islamic State to return to the United States or Europe are likely to be labeled “traitors,” tortured, and eventually killed by the Jihadi leadership. American members of the Islamic State are likely only coming back in body bags.

Nevertheless, President Obama is determined to unconstitutionally act and do the dirty work for corrupt regimes in Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, wasting American tax dollars, risking the lives of American “military advisors” in Iraq, and courting even more future blowback against the United States. Yet Bill O’Reilly considers all this only “a start.” What more does he want?

O’Reilly claims: “We are in desperate need of leadership from the Oval Office, and it has to begin with ISIS.” He insists:

It is a mere seven years since Barack Obama predicted that he would fundamentally transform the Middle East. And now Islamists are slaughtering infidels, Libya and Egypt are in chaos, Iraq is a mess, and Israel faces existential threats. It is not easy for anyone to admit error, and that seems especially difficult for Barack Obama, whose charmed life was largely bereft of criticism until his near-magical ascent to the presidency.

So now what? The time has come for President Obama to take a step back and survey the world. Putin has gobbled up Crimea and may have more conquests on his menu; Syria's Assad has annihilated tens of thousands; Iran’s mullahs continue their quest for a nuclear weapon; even China is growing more belligerent.

O’Reilly is correct that President Obama has “fundamentally transform[ed] the Middle East,” but this is not the result of inaction or dove-like actions. In fairness, much of the violent chaos in the Middle East is the result of American foreign policy decisions which long predate Obama’s presidency. Tensions with Qaddafi in Libya went back thirty years prior to his ouster. American support for Mubarak in Egypt for decades set the stage for the current tensions between Islamists and the military. And Iraq has been a mess that has just kept getting worse due to foolhardy decisions by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. However, the notion that Israel faces “existential threats” is ludicrous as the one-sided war against Gaza showed. Like with Americans, the greatest threat that Israelis face is from their own government.

Nevertheless, President Obama has clearly not been innocent here. His “kinetic military action” in Libya led to the rise of powerful Islamist militias. His continued military support of Egypt following the illegal coup by the military junta led by el-Sisi is almost certainly going to lead to future problems for the United States. And not washing his hands of Iraq after withdrawing American forces is likely to produce blowback. The bombing campaign against the Islamic State has already been a major causal factor in the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Expanding the military campaign against the Islamic State instead of letting regional powers handle it will only unnecessarily lead to more violence aimed at the United States.

O’Reilly is very strongly hinting that he believes President Obama should be taking more decisive action against Russia, Syria, Iran, and China. But, other than giving aggressive nationalists something inappropriate to bolster their self-esteem, what would be accomplished by even rattling a saber here? Crimea and Ukraine have no strategic importance to the United States. Expanding his “empire” will only make it more likely that Putin is going to overextend Russia and cause it to again collapse under the weight of its centrally controlled quasi-communist economy just like the Soviet Union did. What would the upside be to risking another expensive Cold War or risking a nuclear war with Russia? Unless and until Russia becomes a free market economy, it is only a matter of time before it collapses. United States sanctions against Russia are unnecessarily hostile as it is. Doing nothing is the surest solution. And what sense would it make to war against Assad while simultaneously warring against the Islamic State? Attacking Syria only empowers the Jihadists. Money and weapons sent to “moderate” Syrian rebels have already been increasingly getting into the hands of the Islamic State. Active American military action against Assad would simply increase the size of the Islamic State’s “caliphate.” President Obama’s attempts at diplomacy with Iran is the best hope for preventing it from becoming a dangerous rogue nuclear nation. The United States cannot afford the blood and treasure that a needless war against Iran would cost, and the effect of destabilizing another major petroleum supplier like Iran could very likely destroy the world economy. And what O’Reilly fails to recognize is that as long as the United States wrecks its own economy with foolish and expensive wars, China is emboldened. The United States is dependent on China to help in funding the American warfare/welfare state. As long as the United States is unnecessarily dependent on China economically, it has no way of standing up to China. And quite frankly, acting like a “tough guy” with nuclear nations like Russia and China is risking an apocalyptic world war.

Bill O’Reilly is living in a fantasy world as far as foreign policy is concerned, and unfortunately, that fantasy is Dr. Strangelove. Only two sort of people believe that President Obama’s foreign policy is not aggressive enough—maniacs and contrarians who simply disagree with President Obama on every single thing because he is President Obama. President Obama needs to be far more dovish and far less hawkish. It is actually hard to see how he could be even more hawkish despite O’Reilly’s misguided criticisms.

(For a much more detailed critique of the arguments and worldview of Bill O’Reilly, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong available now on Amazon in both print and digital.)

GerardEmershaw.com

@GerardEmershaw

#RCW