Posted on 03/20/2015 7:24:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Barack Obama indirectly blamed the foreign policy of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, for the rise of the barbaric and brutal Islamic State terrorist organization in Iraq.
In an interview with Vice News founder Shane Smith released on Tuesday, Obama was asked how the ISIS terrorist group, also known as ISIL or the Islamic State, which has seized large chunks of Syria and Iraq, was able to become "so popular so fast."
Obama responded saying that the group's rise was aided by the U.S. invasion of Iraq that began in 2003 during Bush's presidency.
"Two things," Obama said. "One is ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before we shoot."
Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who served as U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence under Bush from 2002 to 2007, told The Christian Post in a Thursday interview that the president is simply looking to find somewhere else to lay the blame.
"I find that an incredible statement," Boykin, who is the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, asserted. "Al Qaeda existed before 9/11. Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for 9/11. The fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq, under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi emerged as a major force there is, I think, a ridiculous statement to say that they emerged there because of the invasion or that we created them."
"The reality is that is an Al Qaeda affiliate in Nigeria that is capturing young girls and is killing people. The events in Tunisia were perpetrated by an Al Qaeda affiliate. Did we create that?" Boykin asked. "The answer is no. I think that the president is scrambling for somebody to blame."
Boykin went on to explain that the reason ISIS has gained so much momentum is because of Obama's own "failed foreign policy."
"I think that one of the reasons that we are seeing them gain strength and momentum is because of failed foreign policy that has done nothing to stop them," Boykin argued. "I think [Obama] needs to look internally at the very poor decisions that he has made and the fact that he hasn't had a policy that in anyway has impeded their growth."
In the Vice News interview, Obama offered assurance of his current plan to defeat ISIS with limited U.S involvement and stated that the international U.S.-led coalition will eventually defeat ISIS in Iraq.
"We got a 60-country coalition. We will slowly push back ISIL out of Iraq," Obama contended. "I am confident that will happen."
Although Obama is "confident" in the coalition efforts to defeat ISIS, Boykin feels there is no way ISIS will be defeated under Obama's current strategy.
"It is definitely not going to in any amount of time destroy ISIS, no matter what he says. The pace at which we are pursuing this so-called strategy, we are not going to destroy ISIS," Boykin argued. "The question is, could we destroy ISIS? And the answer is, it is questionable. Could we destroy them if we had an all-out campaign against them? It is questionable. But, it is for certain that at the current pace, with the current strategy, we are not going to destroy ISIS."
Boykin offered his own strategy for defeating ISIS and said first the president needs to admit to the religious nature of the group's war.
"To begin with, we start by our president acknowledging that ISIS is a component of Islam and that ISIS is fighting in the name of Islam, that ISIS is motivated by the theology of Islam and identifying who the enemy is and what makes them fight," Boykin stated. "Once we do that, then we engage the Muslim communities around the world, who don't want to be part of this grand jihad. There are many, many Muslims who don't but they sit on the sidelines and they watch to see if we are going to take a stand, if we are going to actually recognize who the enemy is. As long as we continue to deny who the enemy is, those components of the Muslim community that also reject jihad, that rejects sharia, they are going to continue to sit on the sidelines."
Boykin also warned against the United States providing weapons to other Islamic groups and said weapons should only be provided to groups that the United States knows it can trust.
"We [need to] arm our friends, not our enemies," Boykin said. "We don't arm these Islamic groups like the Free Syrian Army and the rebel groups in Libya, we arm our friends like the Kurds and the Christian militias that want to fight for themselves."
Lastly, Boykin said that the United States should equip the U.S. Special Operations Command with everything they need to arm, train and lead trusted militia groups in the fight against ISIS.
I like him.
Unfortunately, he has already been portrayed as a clueless Bushbot, even by some on this forum, based upon his less-than-stellar performance in a previous debate, wherein he forgot how many fed agencies there were, or something to that effect.
I forget just what his "offense" was, but I do recall the clueless media seizing upon it, just like the "World is on fire" thing with Cruz.
But, in my mind, Rick Perry would have no problem with carrying and wielding that big stick.
But I don't think he has his heart in it after the attacks from the last campaign.
You are as dense as Obama. The Muslim radical problem is thousands of years old. Before All Qaeda there was Ansar all Islam. Before bn Laden there was Abu Nidal. And on and on. Bush at least recognized the problem and understood that the best defense from these nuts was an offense that kept them on the run. He was not brutal enough but comparing him with Obama is just plain nuts.
Muslims are to blame!
I would say bambaboy; he pulled out to soon, which I have heard he’s famous for......
I blame old Mohammed.
100% obama. He is also funding them and supplying weapons!
90%+ Obama. He was hell bent on removing all US troops by a certain date, so he ignored all the military and other advisers who told him exactly what would happen.
Then, he did nothing for weeks as ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria in their Toyota convoys that could have been severely damaged with air power. Obama made the wrong decisions every step of the way, including all during the negotiations to leave a smaller US force in Iraq.
After the savages actually committing the atrocities, Obama is the most responsible for all the murdered, abused and displaced persons of Iraq. And he’s almost a founding father of Islamic State.
“IMHO, neither of them had perfect foresight about ISIS. But at the same time, a long time ago people should have let the Middle East fight it out rather than play favorites.”
That is all fine and dandy as long as they fight among themselves. However they have included us in their fighting. Their fight is based on Islamic supremacy and against Western values. So there is no way we will not become involved.
It is worse than a false religion their believe in the evil of Bush and the Sainthood of Obama.
Riddle me this.
They claim that removing Saddam from power created the vacuum that terrorist filled.
Yet, they support removing Assad from power.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was captured and imprisoned during the Bush administration. He was set free by Obama.
Well Wilson was in the White House when we forced countries that everybody knew were unnatural and doomed to failure on the Middle East.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.