Obama’s Strategy: Expect a Mouse from a Mountain that Will Not Deliver!
Published in Al-Thawra
(Syria) on 9 September 2014
by Ali Kasim (link to original)
(Syria) on 9 September 2014
by Ali Kasim (link to original)
Translated from
by Hend Al-Rijab.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
We will waste ink and more time before Obama's strategy against the Islamic State can see the light. What was never written before will be written now, of analysis and conclusions; even unrelated subjects will be added.
And sometimes, those writings would add to this strategy what is beyond the capacity to endure, until it becomes like a snowball, thrown from head to head or even from one foot to the other. Meanwhile, the mountain of terrorism and the hills of the Islamic State grow up before the eyes of the West.
A few weeks ago, when President Obama said that he does not have a strategy to confront the Islamic State, nobody believed him, not even the Americans themselves. It is not logical according to dazzling American standards, which took the lead of the world for more than two decades. The U.S. took it upon itself to lead the world (directly and indirectly) in the fight against terrorism. America practiced the strategy of destruction and managed the devastation in the world, raising a banner that says: anyone who is not with us is against us.
In one day everything was changed; what was absent from the American mind attends to the field immediately. What was difficult or impossible, or at least not available, has become possible, thanks to the American snowball. All President Obama had to do is to open the forgotten drawers to bring out the strategy to come.
The innocent question that is posed today before tomorrow is whether the major strategies would only take a few days to place, specifically when confronting the most dangerous challenge in the world. What are these strategies, on which rules were they built, how they are placed, and according to which standards?
The answer is not innocent at all. There is a clear overlap between naturally inherited hypocrisy and the hypocrisy in betting on the role of terrorism in the next phase.
As evidenced by the American way of dealing with the spread of terrorism, the United States is still moving in circles. The American administration is still betting on terrorism as an objective carrier of any strategy. This way, the American acquisition of the remainder of global decision-making will continue.
This contradicts the voice of local partners with this terrorist product, a product that is manufactured regionally in terms of financing and is adopted by the West. Yet it coincides with the elaborated pause and exaggeration, which affect many factors in this strategy. This strategy waits for a mouse to be delivered before the mountain gives birth to it. You hear the fanfare but you do not see the flour, only what accumulates from the mountain of terrorism.
In a logical reading, it is not difficult to reach the primary keys leading to the realization of the features of the first American strategy. Considering people's lives are nothing but lab rats and fields to test its ambitions. Its tools are partnerships with the terrorism manufacturers and tools to sponsor and embrace terrorism.
This is not a matter of minimizing what the Americans are trying to offer, but it is an approach to the reality of this course of exaggeration, while waiting for the results of Obama's ideas and the result of this American strategy. The U.S. still runs terrorism publicly and privately through its agents, or through tools used to be hired whenever there is a need for the counter-terrorism banner.
On the other hand, rounding corners does not seem to be absent from the American mind, as evidenced by that high American tone. On the other hand, it keeps the hypocrisy that is searching for additional excuses to continue supporting terrorism and the language of black and white or good and evil. The U.S. worked hard to keep its tools in the region to maintain the pace of funding and incubation, which is an additional way to whitewash the supporters and financiers of terrorism.
The American title of counter-terrorism was sufficient to read the content of the American messages, and to understand enough details of Obama's strategy, which will not come up with anything new. Perhaps this message will divest the scene of its simplified concepts to submit a floating language that is suitable for every time and place, while the hypocrisy increases alongside the confrontation. This way, fighting terrorism will be another banner of Western hypocrisy, with much boring chatter to justify America’s announced and unannounced partnerships with terrorism.
And sometimes, those writings would add to this strategy what is beyond the capacity to endure, until it becomes like a snowball, thrown from head to head or even from one foot to the other. Meanwhile, the mountain of terrorism and the hills of the Islamic State grow up before the eyes of the West.
A few weeks ago, when President Obama said that he does not have a strategy to confront the Islamic State, nobody believed him, not even the Americans themselves. It is not logical according to dazzling American standards, which took the lead of the world for more than two decades. The U.S. took it upon itself to lead the world (directly and indirectly) in the fight against terrorism. America practiced the strategy of destruction and managed the devastation in the world, raising a banner that says: anyone who is not with us is against us.
In one day everything was changed; what was absent from the American mind attends to the field immediately. What was difficult or impossible, or at least not available, has become possible, thanks to the American snowball. All President Obama had to do is to open the forgotten drawers to bring out the strategy to come.
The innocent question that is posed today before tomorrow is whether the major strategies would only take a few days to place, specifically when confronting the most dangerous challenge in the world. What are these strategies, on which rules were they built, how they are placed, and according to which standards?
The answer is not innocent at all. There is a clear overlap between naturally inherited hypocrisy and the hypocrisy in betting on the role of terrorism in the next phase.
As evidenced by the American way of dealing with the spread of terrorism, the United States is still moving in circles. The American administration is still betting on terrorism as an objective carrier of any strategy. This way, the American acquisition of the remainder of global decision-making will continue.
This contradicts the voice of local partners with this terrorist product, a product that is manufactured regionally in terms of financing and is adopted by the West. Yet it coincides with the elaborated pause and exaggeration, which affect many factors in this strategy. This strategy waits for a mouse to be delivered before the mountain gives birth to it. You hear the fanfare but you do not see the flour, only what accumulates from the mountain of terrorism.
In a logical reading, it is not difficult to reach the primary keys leading to the realization of the features of the first American strategy. Considering people's lives are nothing but lab rats and fields to test its ambitions. Its tools are partnerships with the terrorism manufacturers and tools to sponsor and embrace terrorism.
This is not a matter of minimizing what the Americans are trying to offer, but it is an approach to the reality of this course of exaggeration, while waiting for the results of Obama's ideas and the result of this American strategy. The U.S. still runs terrorism publicly and privately through its agents, or through tools used to be hired whenever there is a need for the counter-terrorism banner.
On the other hand, rounding corners does not seem to be absent from the American mind, as evidenced by that high American tone. On the other hand, it keeps the hypocrisy that is searching for additional excuses to continue supporting terrorism and the language of black and white or good and evil. The U.S. worked hard to keep its tools in the region to maintain the pace of funding and incubation, which is an additional way to whitewash the supporters and financiers of terrorism.
The American title of counter-terrorism was sufficient to read the content of the American messages, and to understand enough details of Obama's strategy, which will not come up with anything new. Perhaps this message will divest the scene of its simplified concepts to submit a floating language that is suitable for every time and place, while the hypocrisy increases alongside the confrontation. This way, fighting terrorism will be another banner of Western hypocrisy, with much boring chatter to justify America’s announced and unannounced partnerships with terrorism.
Previous article![]( "Obama’s War")
